Top Banner
THE SYNTAX OF THE VERB IN BIBLICAL HEBREW POETRY: THE TEXTLINGUISTIC THEORY OF ALVIERO NICCACCI A Guided Research Project Presented to the Faculty of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Theology by Andrew C. Witt December 2008
100
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

THE SYNTAX OF THE VERB IN BIBLICAL HEBREW POETRY:

THE TEXTLINGUISTIC THEORY OF ALVIERO NICCACCI

A Guided Research Project

Presented to the Faculty of

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Theology

by

Andrew C. Witt December 2008

Page 2: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

ii

Copyright © 2008 by Andrew C. Witt All rights reserved.

Page 3: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

iii

Page 4: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

iv

Acknowledgements I would like to first acknowledge my loving parents, Dave and Nancy, without whose support and love I would have never been able to finish this degree. I cannot say thank you enough. I would also like to acknowledge two church families. First, Peters Creek Baptist Church, whose financial support and prayers have been a blessing ever since I have come to seminary. May I be able to serve as you do. Second, Bay Leaf Baptist Church, in Raleigh, NC, particularly the College and Career ministry, for providing a spiritual home for me during my stay in Wake Forest. I especially would like to thank Rev. Chad Hood, whose spiritual guidance and wisdom are well beyond his years. May we have many fruitful days of service and friendship to come. Several acknowledgements are also due to Hebrew professors at Southeastern who introduced me to the subject. First, Dr. John Sailhamer, with whom I had the honor and privilege to study under for several classes. His Messiah and the Hebrew Bible article sparked a fire in me for the Hebrew Bible that I hope will continue into eternity. Second, Dr. Shawn Madden, who taught me how to clause a sentence, and by-and-large introduced me to discourse. And last, but not least, Dr. Robert Cole, under whom it has also been a privilege to sit and learn about the beauty of Hebrew poetry, especially in the Psalter. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. His blessings far surpass my sin. Ps. 2:12

Page 5: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

v

CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................................ vii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Aims of the Paper 8 THE FEATURES AND FORMS OF BIBLICAL HEBREW POETRY ........................................9 Kinds of Parallelism 11 Distinguishing Marks of Biblical Hebrew Poetry 13 A Method for Analyzing Poetry 15 THE “ENIGMA” OF THE BIBLICAL HEBREW VERB SYSTEM ...........................................18 THE BIBLICAL HEBREW VERB SYSTEM ACCORDING TO ALVIERO NICCACCI ........22 The Textlinguistic of Harald Weinrich 23 Schneider’s Application of Textlinguistics to Biblical Hebrew 28 Summary 32 The Textlinguistic Approach of Alviero Niccacci 32 First-Position vs. Second Position in the Sentence 33 Narration 35 Direct Speech 37 Poetic Syntax 39 Summary 46 APPLICATION THROUGH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION ...............................................46 Jonah 2 47 Psalm 1 62

Page 6: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

vi

Psalm 2 70 Evaluation 79

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................80 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................83

Page 7: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration 1: Elements of a Text...................................................................................................27 Illustration 2: Elements of a Biblical Hebrew Text .......................................................................30

Page 8: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The Distribution of English Verb Tenses ........................................................................25 Table 2: Domain and Orientation ..................................................................................................32 Table 3: The Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Historical Narrative .............................................37 Table 4: The Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Direct Speech/Poetry ...........................................39

Page 9: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

ix

ABSTRACT The goal of this project is to describe a method of analysis for Biblical Hebrew poetry that would

provide a proper syntactical analysis of the verb forms, and a proper rhetorical analysis of the

features and marks of poetic discourse. In doing so, the author set out to present the verbal

theory of Alviero Niccacci, apply it to certain poetic texts, and then critically analyze his

theory’s explanation of those texts.

To achieve that goal two main discussions took place. First, a method for the analysis of

Hebrew poetry was set forth in which the focus rested on the joining together of verbal theory

(syntax) and verse structure (rhetorical). There, aspects of biblical parallelism were examined, as

well as the distinguishing marks of BH poetry. An important step was added into the method of

analysis so that syntax could be analyzed. Since communication in poetry occurs through

parallelism (segmentation) rather than logical and sequential communication (prose), it was

deemed necessary that syntactic analysis was better realized prior to poetic devices. In cases

such as ellipsis, where parallelistic structure is crucial to meaning, rhetorical study is seen to

serve syntax, not vice-a-versa.

A second discussion undertaken was the “enigma” of the Biblical Hebrew verb system.

A brief summary was given to the most prevalent solutions offered over the past two centuries –

tense, aspect, comparative-historical, and discourse-oriented – before an appeal was made for

how textlinguistics offered a solution to the problem, suggesting that there is no essential

difference between the syntax of poetry and prose. Afterwards, a full-blown explanation of

Niccacci’s textlinguistic was done. In explaining Niccacci’s theory, a treatment was given to the

Page 10: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

x

linguistic model proposed by Harald Weinrich (textlinguistics), as well as that model’s first

application to Biblical Hebrew (W. Schneider).

After these discussions, the application of Niccacci’s textlinguistic took place with the

syntactic analysis of Jonah 2:3-10, Psalm 1, and Psalm 2. In each text Niccacci’s theory was

able to make sense of the verb forms as linguistic signs, respecting the verb forms as they were

encountered, on their own terms. His major contributions to the study of poetic syntax are his

solutions to alternating qatal/yiqtol constructions, parallel qatal-wayyiqtol and w-yiqtol/weqatal,

and using ellipsis to better understand the <x->yiqtol construction in reference to the past.

Page 11: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

xi

Page 12: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

1

THE SYNTAX OF THE VERB IN BIBLICAL HEBREW POETRY: A PRESENTATION, APPLICATION, AND EVALUATION

OF THE TEXTLINGUISTIC THEORY OF ALVIERO NICCACCI

Introduction The linguistic study of the verb in Biblical Hebrew is typically split up into several categories:

morphology (the study of forms), semantics (the study of meaning), and syntax (the study of the

relationship between different levels in the text, e.g., words in a clause or clauses in a sentence).

Though this paper is only concerned with a particular sub-category of the syntax of the verb,

understanding how verbs are formed (morphology) and if each form carries with it a particular

meaning (semantics) may help to make sense of the entire verbal system.

Biblical Hebrew verbs begin with a basic root, which is usually tri-consonantal, e.g. קטל

(qtl). These consonants have been vocalized using a system of points, which indicate vowels,

accents, stresses, pauses, etc. (e.g., qtl can be vocalized as qatal or yiqtol). This basic

combination of consonants and points also provides person, number, and gender distinctions

through a series of prefixes or suffixes, which are generally accompanied by specific

modifications within the word (e.g., qatal is third person, masculine, and singular, while qatalti

is first person, common, and singular). There are four specific verb conjugations that have

received much attention throughout the last few centuries regarding the syntax of the verb: qatal

,The basic, or simple 1.(וקטל) and wəqatal ,(ויקטל) wayyiqtol ,(יקטל) yiqtol ,(קטל)

1 These four conjugations are also known by different names, though this paper will use the terms above, as

they describe the form of the verb rather than name it in accordance with a verb theory (e.g., past tense, or perfect).

Page 13: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

2

vocalization of the Hebrew verb is the Qal stem of the qatal conjugation. Most of the other

conjugations and stems are built from this simple conjugation and stem.

The inherent lexical meaning of the root consonants (including active or stative

significance), combined with the broad meaning of the verbal stem (qal, niphal, piel, etc.) and

conjugation (qatal, yiqtol, etc.) add to the semantic value of a particular verbal form. It is not

until one places the verbal form into a particular context and within a particular verbal system,

however, that the full meaning of a verbal form can be appreciated. For example, if one

approaches the verbal system with a tense-based theory of the verb, a qal qatal form will have a

simple past tense value inherent within the morphology of the verb, whereas an aspectual

approach will have the tendency to understand the qatal form as inherently containing a

perfective value within its morphology. Though one can enter into the particular textual context

of a specific verb form by simply reading a text, scholars have had a much harder time

understanding how exactly the verbal system functions within Biblical Hebrew.

One only needs to survey the ongoing scholarly conversation to get a sense of the

difficulty many have had in understanding the Biblical Hebrew verb system, in both narrative

and poetic texts. For the purposes of this paper, it is significant that scholars have yet to present

a sufficient theory of the verb that is able to handle the special problems that arise for the

interpretation of verbal conjugations in Biblical Hebrew poetry. 2

Psalm 7:16 can serve as an example of the difficulty scholars have had. The text reads,

In this verse, there is a qatal conjugation, two .בור כרה ויחפרהו ויפל בשחת יפעל

The qatal conjugation is also known as the perfect, or suffixed conjugation; the yiqtol is also known as the imperfect, prefixed, non-perfective, or present-future; the wayyiqtol is known as the imperfect waw-consecutive, and the wəqatal as the perfect waw-consecutive. See WHS §161-182 for a more full description of these four forms.

2 This is not to say that a majority of scholars have accepted a system of the verb that works consistently in

prose texts. That is a discussion that must take place in another setting. For this paper’s concerns, focus must remain on the verb system in Biblical Hebrew poetry. In the end, however, the final solution to the verb must be able to work well in both prose and poetic texts.

Page 14: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

3

wayyiqtol conjugations, and a yiqtol conjugation. Major English versions have translated it as

follows:

ESV He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole that he has made. CSB He dug a pit and hollowed it out, but fell into the hole he had made. JPS He hath digged a pit, and hollowed it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. KJV He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. NAU He has dug a pit and hollowed it out, And has fallen into the hole which he made. NIV He who digs a hole and scoops it out falls into the pit he has made. RSV He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole which he has made.

In these examples, the qatal is translated as a present (ESV, RSV), a participle (NIV), a simple

past (CSB, KJV), and a perfect (JPS, NAU). The wayyiqtol are translated as infinitives (ESV,

RSV), presents (ESV, NIV, RSV), simple pasts (CSB, JPS, KJV, NAU), perfect presents (JPS,

KJV), and perfects (NAU). The yiqtol has been translated as perfect (ESV, CSB, NIV, RSV)

and simple past (JPS, KJV, NAU). Though translation is only able to provide limited access to

the functions and meaning(s) of syntactic structures, these examples illustrate well that current

translating principles are inconsistent in their interpretations (especially in how each translator

handled the two consecutive wayyiqtol forms). For example, what is the relationship between

qatal followed by wayyiqtol, or wayyiqtol followed yiqtol, in poetic texts? Or, what is the

meaning of qatal and yiqtol conjugations when they are in parallelism?

Available introductory and intermediate grammars help little towards finding a solution.

Little, if anything, is said about poetry, let alone how the verb system functions grammatically

and syntactically within poetry. There are several reasons for this. First, grammars typically

treat prose before poetry because prose syntax is generally considered more consistent than

poetic syntax.3 To some degree this is justified. Second, given the controversy over the syntax

of verbs in prose texts throughout the previous century (see below), it is not surprising that

3Tal Goldfajn has noted, “It is generally assumed that the verbal system in classical narrative is relatively systematic and homogeneous, and contrasts with the use of tenses in both BH poetry, where the tenses are regarded as even less comprehensible, and in late biblical Hebrew, where the waw-prefixed forms wayyiqtol and weqatal are less frequent.” In Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 19.

Page 15: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

4

poetry has been given a secondary position, if any position at all, in beginning and intermediate

grammars. In other words, attention was necessarily given to prose texts over poetic texts. The

idea was that a solution to the verb in prose texts would lead to a solution to the verb in poetic

texts.

It is not because of lack of attention, though, that the poetic genre has been given a

secondary treatment. Many scholars, such as Berlin, Alter, and Watson, have contributed much

to the rhetorical study of Biblical Hebrew poetry.4 The focus on rhetorical study, though very

helpful, has only produced minimal observations concerning the sequence and syntax of verbs.

For instance, Berlin’s Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism only explicitly treats the subject twice,

while Alter only addresses its “ambiguity” once.5 This led to Arto Anturri’s observation that

“throughout the 1980s a wealth of studies dealing with aspects of Hebrew poetry and its verse

structure emerged…Still, even in 1993 it has been correctly observed that one of the things that

need further attention is the use of verbs.”6 In a footnote to this statement, he even went so far as

to ask, “Does this suggest that the study of poetic syntax has been utterly unproductive?”7 The

answer to that question is simply, No. It would be unfair to call the advances in understanding

parallelism “utterly unproductive.” It must be said, though, that the discussion of Hebrew

poetry is certainly left incomplete without any kind of consensus concerning the verb

conjugations.

4 Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism: Revised and Expanded (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 2008); Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books/Perseus Book Group, 1985); Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Technique (JSOTSS 26, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984).

5 Berlin, Dynamics, 35-36 and 136-37; Robert Alter, Biblical Poetry, 131. 6 Arto Antturi, ‘The Hebrew Verb in Poetic Context: Psalm 44’ (A paper presented at the University of

Leiden, March 1994), 1. Used by permission through e-mail correspondence (April 3, 2008). 7 Ibid., 1n5.

Page 16: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

5

In regard to this lack of consensus, Alviero Niccacci has observed among his

contemporaries, “It was and still is fairly a common opinion among scholars, although not

always openly declared, that the verbal forms in poetry, more than in prose, can be taken to mean

everything the interpreter thinks appropriate according to his understanding and the context.”8

Similarly, in the introduction to their Psalms commentary, Hossfeld and Zenger have

commented, “There is no consensus among scholars as regards the system of tenses or the

determination of the several levels in poetic texts.”9 Their remarks, again, point to a lack of

consensus which is easily observed in the review of recent grammars and monographs.

Joüon-Muraoka states, “In poetry the choice of a particular [verb] form may not always

be dictated by grammatical considerations, but, for instance, by some metrical necessity.”10

Likewise, Nicholas P. Lunn stated in his recent monograph,

When one considers the overall meaning of…parallelism it is hard to accept that the author really intended to assign both verbs their own inherent tense and aspect independent from each other…We consider…that both verbs are to be understood as having identical aspectual and temporal reference, even though they differ in form. In this matter we endorse Buth’s treatment of tense-shifting in which he describes the phenomenon taking place here as the ‘alternation of verb forms for purely poetic reasons…’. He is surely right to identify this as ‘a poetic device’ and not a semantic distinction.11

These scholars represent the general attitude of many in the field (and, in this sense, a consensus

in the field); namely, that the actual form of the verb loses its temporal and aspectual meaning

8 Alviero Niccacci, “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry” in Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, eds., Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 247.

9 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalm 2: A Commentary on Psalm 51-100 (Minneapolis, MN:

Ausgsurg Fortress, 2005), xi. Though they acknowledge a lack of consensus among Biblical Hebrew scholars, they do claim to move forward in their own translation using more recent observations from the field. Regretfully, they do not go into any detail describing what these new observations might be.

10 Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996), §111. 11 Nicholas P. Lunn, Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock

Publishers, 2006), 118. It is hard to refrain from being cynical: is it really that “tense-shifting” has occurred, or is it that a proper explanation has yet to be put forward.

Page 17: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

6

when used in parallelism. Stated differently, the context of poetic parallelism is said to remove

the normal distinction between i.e. a qatal and a yiqtol.

An example of this is in Psalm 2:1,

למה רגשו גוים ולאמים יהגו־ריקWhy have/do [qatal] the nations conspire(d), and the peoples plot(ted) [yiqtol] a vain thing?

In translation, interpreters typically either decide for a present or perfect past understanding of

the verb forms, and then translate both forms the same way. The verb form in line A is said to

provide the context for any verb form in line B. In the above example, this means that qatal in

line A is the canonical form, providing the context for its parallel verb form in line B (yiqtol).

The yiqtol in line B functionally acts like a qatal, with its variation in form being a literary,

aesthetic feature (a ‘poetic device’). Thus, even if the form in line B were a participle or an

infinitive, it would theoretically mean the same thing (function in the same way) as the yiqtol

conjugation. Even if one disagrees with this view, at the very least, what these scholars have

recognized is that there seems to be a change in the way syntax governs the use of verb forms in

Biblical Hebrew poetry.

Other scholars have not been so willing to revert to “poetic devices” for “purely poetic

reasons.” They continue to posit, “It is only reasonable to assume that if a writer uses different

verb forms, he has in mind different temporal or aspectual references. Our task is to interpret his

mind on the basis of the verb forms he uses.”12 In this view, the verb forms themselves are still

used as a guide to understand what is happening in the text, and serve to clue in the reader on the

authorial intent of the passage. Using the same example as above, an alternative translation has

been offered by Niccacci, “Why did the nations conspire, while the peoples were plotting in

12 Alviero Niccacci, “Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi,” LASBF 51 (2001), 59.

Page 18: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

7

vain?”13 Here, x-yiqtol in 2:1b is taken as a circumstantial construction (background) linked to

its preceding verbal form (foreground). Somewhat similar to the observations noted above,

Niccacci uses the verb form in line A as the “canonical” form, with the form in line B finding its

context using the form in line A. 14 Niccacci, however, does this for reasons differing from

poetic devices (these will be discussed later). In this case, he understands the qatal to express

past, “single information,” while the x-yiqtol expresses “repetition/habit/explication/description.”

Though one might disagree, Niccacci has raised an important point: if an author wanted to use

the same temporal or aspectual meaning for the verb form, then why were two different forms

used? Others, like Niccacci, share the same sentiment that it is too early in research to revert to

“poetic devices” as a solution.15 Whether or not Niccacci is moving in the right direction for

understanding verbal syntax in poetry will be answered later in this paper.

The preceding debate serves to show that much work still needs to be done in regards to

poetic syntax. Scholars will continue to debate the Biblical Hebrew verb system until a solution

in poetic texts is found. If a theory of the Biblical Hebrew verb does not work in poetry, it

cannot, in any legitimate sense, be said to work at all (contra Gropp).16

13 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 259. 14 Niccacci does not use the term “canonical”, though it could fit into his theory. The term is only used

here to show the similarity between his theory and the theory of Lunn. Their views are different in that Lunn uses the canonical form to define how the form in line B is translated, whereas Niccacci uses it to define what temporal axis one is one (past, present, or future) – the form in line B can be related to the form in line A in a number of ways.

15 E.g., Eep Talstra, “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry – Linguistic Structure or Rhetorical Device?”

(Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 25/2, 1999), 101-126. This is not to say that the poet might purposefully stretch the language for rhetorical reasons. For example, the confusing use of the verb conjugations in Lamentations 3 might be due to the intention of the author to leave the reader in a state of confusion, rather than using the conjugations in their normal usage. A theory of the verb in poetry must be open to such rhetorical possibilities.

16 Douglas M. Gropp, “The Function of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew” (HAR 13), 45.

Page 19: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

8

The Aims of This Paper

The goal of this paper is not to lay claim to a final solution to the problem of the verb in

Biblical Hebrew poetry. Rather, its aim is to present the verbal theory of Alviero Niccacci, apply

it to certain poetic texts, and then critically analyze his theory’s explanation of those texts. In

presenting this analysis, the paper will move forward in several directions.

First, there will be a brief discussion about the peculiarities of Biblical Hebrew poetry. In

this section rhetorical phenomena will be discussed, such as parallelism and conciseness

(brevity/density). In the sub-section on method, there will be an interaction with different

proposals as to whether the study of verbal syntax in poetry should begin by looking at clauses or

lines. In this respect, Talstra has made a cogent argument that poetry should first be analyzed in

terms of a linguistic system before entering the domain of rhetorical study.17

Second, there will be a short summary of what several verb theories propose about the

Biblical Hebrew verb system. An appeal will be made for how textlinguistics can offer a

solution to the problem, suggesting that there is no essential difference between the syntax of

poetry and prose; rather, the difference lies in communicating through a parallelistic structure

(poetry) versus a sequential, logical structure (prose).

Third, there will be a presentation of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system according to

Alviero Niccacci. This section will begin with an overview of textlinguistics and its application

to Biblical Hebrew. Afterwards, a full presentation of Niccacci’s theory will be undertaken,

beginning first with prose, and then finishing with poetry.

17 Eep Talstra, “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry.” To the author’s knowledge, no one else has made this

argument, though it seems to be an important one that may provide a better environment for the future study of the subject. For example, one would interpret a verse such as Psalm 2:11-12 differently if approach linguistically rather than rhetorically, as will be seen in later analysis.

Page 20: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

9

This section will be followed by a fourth, which will apply Niccacci’s theory to three

complete poetic texts: Jonah 2, Psalm 1, and Psalm 2. These texts have been carefully selected

to include as many different verb conjugations as possible (particularly qatal, yiqtol, weqatal,

and wayyiqtol) in as little verses as possible.

Fifth, and last, there will be an evaluation of Niccacci’s verbal theory. Does it produce

any results? Does he offer any direction for future study of the Biblical Hebrew verb system in

poetry? Questions such as these must be answered to determine if Niccacci’s work will (or even

should!) have any lasting impact.

The Features and Forms of Biblical Hebrew Poetry

The characteristic feature of Biblical Hebrew poetry is parallelism.18 Parallelism, in its most

basic definition, is simply “the correspondence of one thing to another.”19 It plays such an

important role in how Biblical Hebrew poetry is understood that to talk about poetry one often

talks about parallelism, and to talk about parallelism one talks about poetry. The link between

the two is derived from their first formal study, which is usually traced to Robert Lowth, an

eighteenth century language scholar. In his Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, and

in his introduction to Isaiah, Lowth observed three kinds of semantic parallelism: synonymous,

antithetic, and synthetic.20 Even though these observations were made in late eighteenth century,

they remained seminal in studies of parallelism until rather recently.

18 W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (New York: T&T Clark

International, 2005), 114. 19 Berlin, Dynamics, 2. 20 Synonymous parallelism refers to the repetition of line A in line B using different words, antithetic

parallelism refers to the reversal of ideas in line B from line A, and synthetic parallelism is somewhat of a catch-all category, usually referring to how line B adds to or explains better line A.

Page 21: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

10

The modern study of Biblical Hebrew poetry in many ways peaked in the mid-1980s.

There were several lines of influential scholarship at that time. Some followed in the footsteps

of Lowth, while others approached the subject from a modern linguistic standpoint. Those who

followed Lowth continued to focus on semantic and syntactic relationships between parallel

lines, while those coming from a linguistic standpoint sought to describe morphological,

syntactic, lexical, semantic, and phonological relationships between parallel lines.

The most notable scholars following Lowth were Kugel and Alter.21 What makes their

research significant is their fundamental disagreement with Lowth’s tripartite semantic division

of parallelism. Instead of preserving, modifying, or expanding upon Lowth’s categories (as

others had done previously), Kugel argued for one overarching semantic category – A, what’s

more, B – which could be realized in a wide variety of ways. For many, this observation proved

to be a major turning point in the study of Biblical Hebrew parallelism (and poetry).

The modern linguistic approach to the subject has been dominated by Adele Berlin.22

Her scholarship has focused on grammatical, morphological, lexical, and phonological features

of parallelism, though she has not by any means excluded the valuable insights made by those

studying the semantic and syntactic features of parallelism. Indeed, these two schools are not

opposed to one another, but are complementary, as Berlin makes quite clear, “My linguistic

description of parallelism…provided a confirmation and an explanation of the conclusions

reached through other means by Alter and Kugel.”23 One might say that Alter and Kugel

21 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: BasicBooks, 1985); and James Kugel, The Idea of

Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981). 22 Adele Berlin, Dynamics. 23 Berlin, Dynamics, xvii.

Page 22: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

11

observed the literary effect of parallelism, while Berlin made an effort to explain theoretically

how their observations were upheld from a linguistic standpoint.

Kinds of Biblical Parallelism

Berlin has identified four aspects of biblical parallelism: grammatical, lexical, semantic, and

phonological. In general, the grammatical aspect is concerned with the structural organization of

a language; that is, its morphology and syntax. Grammatical parallelism occurs in a text when

there is a “pairing of two different grammatical structures in parallel stitchs.”24 When the pairing

of grammatical elements is the same, she labeled these repetitions, not parallelisms.

Within the grammatical aspect, Berlin identifies two kinds of parallelism: morphological

and syntactical. Morphological parallelism involves “the morphological equivalence or contrast

of individual constituents of the lines,” whereas syntactical parallelism is concerned with the

“syntactic equivalence of one line with another line.”25 More specifically, morphological

parallelism is concerned with pairing of parallel terms from different morphological classes

(parts of speech), or from the same morphological class but containing different morphological

components.”26 In other words, “Whenever a word from one part of speech parallels a word from

a different part of speech we have a form of morphological parallelism.”27 For instance, there

can be parallelism between a noun and a pronoun, a noun and a relative clause, or even between

a substantive and a verb. Usually morphological parallelism is between elements that can take

on the same syntactic slot in a sentence.

24 Adele Berlin, “Grammatical Aspects of Biblical Parallelism,” Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979),

20. Berlin’s “stitch” is this paper’s “line” or “colon.” 25 Berlin, Dynamics, 31. 26 Berlin, “Grammatical Aspects,” 20. 27 Berlin, “Grammatical Aspects,” 21.

Page 23: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

12

In syntactical parallelism, a line may be paralleled by one with the same syntactical

surface structure (no transformation) or by one with a different surface structure. What is

important is that the deep structure of the two lines is the same.28 She identifies several types of

syntactical parallelism: positive-negative, change in grammatical mood, subject-object, and

nominal-verbal.29

Lexical parallelism is very closely related to semantic parallelism. In essence they are

only different in that lexical parallelism observes the equivalence of individual word pairs in

parallel lines, as distinct from grammar, while semantic parallelism is concerned with the

relationship between the meaning of parallel lines.30 To relate Berlin’s aspects to earlier studies,

Lowth made his observations exclusively about the semantic aspect of parallelism. Thus, Berlin

greatly expands the scope of parallelism compared with earlier studies. Within lexical and

semantic parallelism, she argues that the equivalence between word pairs (lexical) and parallel

lines (semantic) is either paradigmatic or syntagmatic. A paradigmatic equivalence is when one

thought (or word) is substituted for another, while syntagmatic equivalence refers to semantic

continuation, which is a progression of thought.31 These relationships can be manifested in a

number of ways, as noted in Berlin’s discussion.

The final aspect of parallelism that Berlin makes note of is phonological, which relates to

the sounds of a language. In her study, she limits the discussion of phonological parallelism to

the repetition and contrast of sounds in parallel lines, and to sound pairs in particular. A sound

28 Berlin defines deep structure as “the underlying level of structural organization” (Dynamics, 156). This

is the opposite of surface structure, which is “the form of the phrase or sentence as it occurs in the text.” (157). 29 For further details see “Grammatical Aspects,” 35-38, and Dynamics, 53-63. 30 Berlin, Dynamics, 88. 31 See Berlin, Dynamics, 90. In earlier studies, Lowth observed predominately paradigmatic parallelism,

while Kugel seems to, by definition, exclude it.

Page 24: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

13

pair exists in parallel when there is “repetition in parallel words or lines of the same or similar

consonants in any order within close proximity.”32 To put a control on the amount of

phonological parallelism recognized between two lines, and to reduce the subjectivity involved

in deciding what is or is not phonological parallelism, she qualifies her definition in three ways:

1) there must be at least two sets of consonants involved, 2) the sets must be in close proximity,

and 3) the consonants involved must be identical phonemes, an allophone, or two closely-

articulated phonemes.33 She also notes that sound pairs can occur with word pairs and non-word

pairs. The main effect of this aspect of parallelism is to enhance the perception of

correspondence between two lines.

In the end, it can be observed that there is a multi-aspect and multi-level nature to

parallelism; that is, “parallelism may involve semantics, grammar, and/or other linguistic

features, and it may occur on the level of the word, line, couplet, or over a greater textual

span.”34 The complexity of parallelism is one of its greatest marks, and its potential uses are

nearly endless, leaving open many options for the biblical authors, who showed a mastery of the

Hebrew language.

The Distinguishing Marks of Biblical Hebrew Poetry

Parallelism, though the chief mark of Biblical Hebrew poetry, is only one of its many

distinguishing marks. What makes parallelism the chief is that it is the structuring device upon

32 Berlin, Dynamics, 104. 33 Berlin, Dynamics, 105. 34 Berlin, Dynamics, 25.

Page 25: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

14

which the whole poem it built.35 There are a number of other characteristics that also help

distinguish poetry from prose.

Watson calls these characteristics indicators, and groups them together in four sets of

criteria: broad or general, structural, devices concerning sound, and negative, which refers to the

absence of prose elements.36 The broad indicators of Hebrew poetry include devices such as the

presence of line-forms, ellipsis (also called ‘gapping’), unusual or archaic vocabulary,

conciseness, unusual word order, rhyme and meter, and regularity and symmetry. The structural

criteria include the various forms of parallelism, word-pairs, chiastic patterns, repetition, and

tricolon. Sound devices are those associated with rhyme or worldplay, and negative criteria

includes the lack of the definite article, the object marker, and wayyiqtol verb conjugations,

amongst others. In particular, Berlin singles out the combination of terse language and

parallelism, while Watson seems to make much of the presence of ellipsis, particularly verb

gapping.37

On top of this list, Niccacci observes another crucial characteristic of poetry which sets it

apart syntactically from other forms of direct speech (discourse): segmental communication.38

He notices that prose texts generally convey information logically, in a sequence, while poetic

texts convey information non-linearly, in parallelism. It is as one scholar noted, “Prose proceeds,

poetry repeats; instead of sequence, there is equivalence.”39 Comparing Judges 4:19 and 5:25,

Berlin comes to a similar conclusion, “Each clause [in 5:25] does not have a unique temporal slot

35 Berlin, Dynamics, 6. 36 Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 45-60. 37 Berlin, Dynamics, 7; Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 48. 38 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 248. 39 Talstra, “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 104.

Page 26: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

15

in a sequence as it does in the prose version [4:19]…the poetic version is more nonlinear.”40

This will become a very important observation in later analysis.

A Method for Analyzing Poetry

What is needed for a solution to the enigma of the verb system in poetry is a method of analysis

which brings together a theory of the Biblical Hebrew verb and a theory of Biblical Hebrew

verse structure.41 On the one hand, a theory of the verb must note how the verb conjugations

function within prose and poetry. A theory which only works in prose or poetry, but not both, is

unacceptable.42 On the other hand, a theory of verse structure must take into consideration how

Biblical Hebrew poetry works rhetorically and compositionally.43 Whatever the solution is to the

syntax of Biblical Hebrew poetry, it must begin with the joining of these hands. The method

being proposed in this section is an attempt to accomplish such a task.44

40 Berlin, Dynamics, 13. 41 In many discussions verse can refer to the genre of poetry, in contrast to prose, or it can refer to a

particular level within a poem, usually the same as a strophe. Here, verse is being used in the sense of genre. 42 For instance, if a verb theory based on tense cannot account for the forms which exist in poetry, then

tense cannot be the concept which begins solves the problems of verbal forms. The same would apply for aspectual and textlinguistic/discourse analysis accounts as well.

43 Thus, a rhetorical analysis of the text is broadly considered here. Without any specific scholar in mind,

such analysis seeks to describe the function of the distinguishing marks of poetry listed above.

44 Different scholars refer to different elements in a poetic text with different terms. This can sometimes lead to confusion. For clarity throughout the remainder of this paper, terms will be defined as follows, from the smallest unit to the largest: hemistich (the subdivision of the colon, which is generally half the length of the colon), colon (a single line of poetry, may also be referred to simply as ‘line’), strophe (a verse-unit of one or more cola; when a strophe consists of one colon it will be called a monocolon; when it consists of two cola, a bicolon; three cola, a tricolon; etc.), stanza (a sub-section of the poem, made up of one or more strophes), and poem (an independent unit of poetry, made up of one or more stanzas; may also be referred to as a ‘poetic text’). These definitions are in line with those used by Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (New York: T & T Clark, 2001), 11-15.

Page 27: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

16

Essentially, the method is the same one put forward by Watson, only with an additional

step for syntactic analysis using Niccacci’s textlinguistic.45 As far as analysis is concerned for

this paper, a major focus will be on this step of the method. This means that a full analysis of

each poetic text will not take place, but only that part of the analysis which takes into

consideration the function and effect of the use of the various verb conjugations. Thus, for sake

of brevity, only this step will be explained.

The sevenfold method involves delineation, syntactical analysis, segmentation, inner-

strophic analysis (rhetorical analysis), isolation of poetic devices, tabulation of poetic devices,

and functional analysis.46 There is much overlap between syntactical analysis and the step

following it, segmentation (the dividing of the poem into its various units). The assumption

behind including this step before rhetorical analysis is a simple one, and is best stated by Talstra,

Poetic devices make use of the same grammar as do prose texts, though they exhibit a different selection, making repeated and preferred choices from the available possibilities. One should differentiate between the linguistic system in general and the special markers which together create a specific poetic composition. This will help in the description of a poetic text as discourse, i.e. as a process rather than as a ‘thing of beauty’, a more or less static picture, as is often done in proposals on rhetorical analysis. The task, therefore, is to begin the analysis of pieces of literary art in terms of a linguistic system: clause patterns, verbal system, pronominal reference, topicalisation, etc., before entering the world of lexical repetition, chiasmus and inclusions.47

By approaching poetic analysis using this method, linguistic features of the text can be observed

on their proper foundation, since linguistic analysis cannot be based on rhetorical categories, but

on systems of grammar and syntax. Analysis, then, should proceed from linguistic to poetic

categories, and not vice-a-versa.

For instance, in Jonah 2:3, which will be analyzed below, a typical translation reads,

45 Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 15-30. 46 For functional analysis, see Watson’s detailed research in Classical Hebrew Poetry, §11.01-18.

47 Eep Talstra, “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry – Linguistic Structure or Rhetorical Device?” Journal of

Northwest Semitic Languages 25/2 (1999), 101.

Page 28: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

17

(1) I called out of my distress to Yhwh, [qatal] (2) and then He answered me; [wayyiqtol] (3) From the depth of Sheol I cried for help, [x-qatal] (4) You heard my voice. [qatal]

A rhetorical analysis of this verse would note the parallelistic structure between lines one and

three, and between lines two and four. It would also see no significant difference between the

qatal → wayyiqtol in lines one and two, and the x-qatal → qatal in lines three and four. These

would simply be taken as referring to the same event, which is being repeated.

A linguistic analysis, on the other hand, notes that although the qatal in line four is in

parallel with the wayyiqtol in line two, it does not indicate the same exact information as the

wayyiqtol. The wayyiqtol indicates the past action of the Lord continuing forward from the

preceding qatal. The qatal in line four does not continue forward the preceding background x-

qatal (it is not a continuation verb form), but focuses the reader on the stative fact of God’s

previous action. In other words, the wayyiqtol looks at the action itself in connection with

Jonah’s cry, while the qatal looks the result or end of that action, that God heard his voice. Thus,

the qatal in line four fills in the missing (yet implied) information that the Lord had heard

Jonah’s call.

A method which gives precedence to rhetorical analysis before linguistic analysis will

often create problems for a grammatical approach, “not because it would be unfitting for poetry,

but because it is premature in the procedure,” as was seen in the above example.48 Talstra rightly

observes that “once poetic categories have been chosen, an analysis in textlinguistic or text-

grammatical terms becomes very difficult.”49 A premature rhetorical analysis at the very least

makes the syntactical analysis much more difficult to assess.

48 Talstra, “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 111-112. 49 Talstra, “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 113.

Page 29: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

18

It is not that rhetorical analysis is unimportant, or should be denied, but that it should be

reserved for its proper place. This may be helpful when analyzing special features in poetry,

such as ellipsis (gapping). Miller notes, “From a linguistic point of view, ellipsis involves

constructions in which a grammatically required element is omitted by the speaker, thus creating

a structural hole or gap. By this definition, ellipsis produces utterances which are grammatically

incomplete in their surface structure.”50 The task of the biblical scholar in this case is to

“recognize that ellipsis has occurred and then…transform the sentence fragment into a

meaningful sentence.”51 To do so, the scholar must make use of parallelism (a rhetorical device).

In the end it is not that the two analyses compete with one another, but that they work hand in

hand to derive the correct meaning from the text. With ellipsis, this must be done by using both

syntactical and rhetorical analyses. Thus, a careful discernment between the linguistic

description of poetic texts and their literary, rhetorical analysis, is critical for proper poetic

exegesis.

The “Enigma” of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System

The verb system in Biblical Hebrew has proved an “enigma” to several generations of capable

scholars, who have approached solutions from several different directions. The controversy was,

and still is to some degree, concerned with how to understand the four conjugations mentioned

above: qatal, yiqtol, wəqatal, and wayyiqtol.52 Essentially, scholars have debated whether these

50 Cynthia Miller, “A Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry,” Bulletin for Biblical Research

13.2 (2003), 252. 51 Miller, “Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry,” 253. 52 WOC §29.1b, also include wəyiqtol in their review.

Page 30: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

19

conjugations indicate temporal action, aspectual action, both, or neither.53 The view of the

majority of Hebrew scholars today is that the conjugations indicate aspect, not tense.54 Scholars,

however, are not unified on how aspect is indicated.55 Significantly, no single solution to the

enigma of the verb has presently won over any consensus in the scholarly community.

Historically-speaking, the first grammatical treatment of the Biblical Hebrew verb system

followed a tensed understanding of the verb forms. It was undertaken by the medieval Jewish

grammarian Saadia Gaon.56 Gaon distinguished three parts of speech (nouns, verbs, and

particles), as well as three verb tenses: past tense (qatal), present tense (infinitive and participle

forms), and future tense (yiqtol). This view of the verb system, accompanied later by the waw-

conversive theory, was the basic and prevailing view until the mid-nineteenth century. 57

53 Several very good summaries have already been done to this end, and to simply reword what has already

been said would be somewhat redundant. For a more thorough summary see the following: WOC §29; Leslie McFall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1982); and for more information regarding textlinguistic theories, see: Eep Talstra, “Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The viewpoint of Wolfgang Schneider” (JOTT 5/4, 1992), 267-297, and Eep Talstra, “Tense, Mood, Aspect and Clause Connections in Biblical Hebrew: A Textual Approach” (Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23/2, 1997), 81-103.

54 A sample of those beginning and intermediate grammars which advocate an aspectual approach include:

Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, “A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Russell T. Fuller and Kyoungwon Choi, “Invitation to Biblical Hebrew: A Beginning Grammar” (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006); Duane Garrett, “A Modern Grammar for Classical Hebrew” (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002); GKC; J. C. L. Gibson, “Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax” (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1994); Edwin C. Hostetter, “An Elementary Grammar of Biblical Hebrew” (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Page H. Kelley, “Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar” (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992); Allen P. Ross, “Introducing Biblical Hebrew” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001); C. L. Seow, “A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew” (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995); Jacob Weingreen, “A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959); R. J. Williams, “Williams’ Hebrew Syntax: third edition, revised and expanded by John C. Beckman” (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007); WOC §29.

55 This difference can be observed particularly in how Waltke and O’Connor have treated the verb (§29). 56 Goldfajn, Word Order and Time, 39. 57 Goldfajn, Word Order and Time, 39, which recognizes Menaham’s Mahberet as the first grammar to

treat the waw-prefixed forms.

Page 31: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

20

At that time G. H. Ewald and S. R. Driver developed a new theory which has become

known as the aspectual approach.58 Generally speaking, the aspectual approach is concerned

with the duration of an action, rather than the time of the action. Accordingly, tense systems

generally signify when an action took place chronologically (past, present, or future), while

aspect systems generally signify the internal quality of an action as it is happening

(completed/perfective, or incompleted/imperfective).59

A third, and somewhat recent attempt to understand the Biblical Hebrew verb system, has

come from discourse-oriented approaches.60 The major difference between discourse-oriented

approaches and those preceding it is two-fold. First, discourse-oriented approaches are nearly

unified in finding a synchronic solution to the enigma of verb tenses. Goldfajn has noted,

Much of the work done on this central question of BH grammar in the last two centuries has been diachronic in method: the basic concern has been to establish the genetic links between the BH verb forms and those of other Semitic and Hamitic languages, especially with the Akkadian system. A more systematic synchronic approach to the Hebrew tenses is a relatively recent development.61

58 G.H. Ewald, “Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament” (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1891),

translated by James Kennedy, re-printed by Wipf and Stock (Eugene, OR), 2004, and S. R. Driver, “A Treatise on the Use of the Tense in Hebrew” (London: Oxford University Press, 1894).

59 Many who presently argue for an aspectual verb system do not hold such a simple view as Ewald and

Driver once did. A cogent example is WOC §29.6. The same can be said for tense systems, such as that represented in Joüon-Muraoka.

60 According to chronology, the next approach undertaken was the comparative-historical approach. Unlike

the approaches preceding it, this one began with the assumption that Biblical Hebrew was not a coherent linguistic system, but a combination of multiple linguistic systems. H. Bauer and G.R. Driver were the early pioneers in this approach, who sought to use comparative linguistics to describe the historical development of Biblical Hebrew from its nearest neighbors. As Goldfajn has pointed out, though, it is questionable to assume that syntactic features from multiple languages can be combined into a new language without any significant alteration. He suggested that it seems more likely that the value of a verbal form should be judged by its actual use within a corpus (synchronic), rather than its historical origin (diachronic). All the same, once a synchronic solution is offered, it should be able to fit into a diachronic study. The assumption here is that priority should be given to the study of Biblical Hebrew as it stands in the Hebrew Bible.

61 Goldfajn, Word Order and Time, 13.

Page 32: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

21

Though some synchronic solutions describe the verb system as tense-based or aspectual, many

scholars recognize the value of a discourse-oriented approach.

The second distinctive of discourse-oriented approaches is a focus on syntax which goes

beyond the level of phrases and clauses, to that of texts or discourses. Accordingly, Biblical

Hebrew is described “not on the basis of sentences, but on the basis of texts.”62 By looking

beyond sentence grammar, scholars are beginning to recognize the value in studying how

sentences relate to one another within the larger discourse, or text.63 An important implication of

looking at texts, rather than sentences, is that the whole of the discourse is in view.

Though discourse-oriented approaches have been divided between those which are only

concerned with how texts communicate meaning (textlinguistics), and those which also take into

consideration conversational concerns (discourse analysis), one thing is for certain: by looking at

whole texts (discourses) scholars are able to better analyze how meaning is conveyed through a

medium. Along these lines Talstra has remarked,

The claim that the text is the largest unit of linguistic description has to do with another methodological decision: a language should be analysed according to its function: as a means of human communication…This implies that the linguistic and literary analysis of a text is not interested in the…feelings of its author, but in the linguistic forms used and in their functions. Not why an author used an imperfect has to be explained, but the effect of its use in a particular text.64

62 Eep Talstra, “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of a Theory,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 35 No.

3/4, 169. 63 Yoshinobu Endo, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story (Assen, the Netherlands:

Van Gorcum, 1996), 22-26. In particular, Endo has noted how the discourse grammars have been able to show that ‘tense’ still plays an important role at the level beyond the sentence.

64 Talstra, Elements of a Theory, 169. Talstra also wants to argue that a linguistic and literary study of a

text is not interested in the purposes of the author, implying that the author’s feelings and purposes are the same thing. Textlinguistics, as used in this paper, disagrees with Talstra at this point, and for this reason, textlinguistics should be distinguished from discourse analysis. A textlinguistic, as the term is used here, though not concerned with the feelings of the author, relies on the linguistic and literary analysis of a text to arrive at an author’s purpose and intention. Thus, the effect of the use of an imperfect within a text will also provide the reason why such an imperfect was used by the author. Discourse analysis, on the other hand, is by its very nature concerned not only with texts, but with numerous features of a communicative act that are not text related.

Page 33: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

22

The central question, then, for discourse approaches is what function each verb form has in the

process of communication.65 Discourse approaches (in particular textlinguistics) are not

concerned with an author’s inward dispositions, but are concerned with the actual words of the

communicative act. This sets textlinguistics apart from the approaches previously discussed:

aspectual theories approach the verb in terms of duration or type of action, tense theories in

terms of time of action, and discourse theories in terms of type of communication.66

Another distinguishing mark within discourse-oriented circles concerns the concept of a

distributional methodology. Van der Merwe has identified the two main strands of discourse

approaches based on how each handles the question of distribution and function. 67 The first

strand is the functional approach, which is mainly concerned with treating specific problem

areas in the description of Biblical Hebrew in terms of a particular modern linguistics or

discourse theory.68 Here, different functional elements are first defined and then a specific form

from the text is shown to ‘fit’ into that function.

The second strand is the form-to-function approach, which favors an entire re-evaluation

of existing grammatical knowledge in terms of a new look at all the Biblical Hebrew data. Here,

before assigning the different conjugations a function, discourse analysts tend to first note how

each form is distributed in the Hebrew text.69 Van der Merwe observed that these two paths are

65 Talstra, Elements of a Theory, 170. 66 This distinction will be thoroughly explained below. 67 C. H. J. van der Merwe, “Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar: The Road Ahead,” in

Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. R. B. Bergen (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 38. He also showed in this section how the recent interest in discourse approaches is different than the path most other grammars currently pursue, such as Waltke and O’Connor.

68 He identified Robert Longacre and F. I. Andersen as scholars of this approach. 69 He identified W. Richter, W. Gross, and E. Talstra as scholars of this approach.

Page 34: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

23

not mutually exclusive, but serve to complement one another. He concluded that a proper

discourse approach to biblical Hebrew must account for all the data (form-to-function), but also

must allow for “imaginative hypotheses” based on observations from other languages and from

particular modern linguistic theories.70

The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System According to Alviero Niccacci

This section is an overview of the syntax of the verb according to Alviero Niccacci. He

approaches the verb system from a textlinguistic standpoint, founded upon the linguistic theory

of Harald Weinrich, and the initial work done by Wolfgang Schneider and Eep Talstra in

applying that theory to Biblical Hebrew.71 Niccacci himself has had an evolution in his

understanding of syntax in poetic texts, and one cannot appreciate his conclusions unless an

understanding of his work in prose texts is first presented, along with an overview of his

changing view of poetic texts.

The Textlinguistic of Harald Weinrich

As stated above, Niccacci has built his theory of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system having made

much use of the linguistic work of Harald Weinrich.72 The linguistic theory attributed to

Weinrich has been labeled “textlinguistics,” and has been explained as “a method used in

linguistics to describe all the elements of a language, including the function these have in oral

70 Van der Merwe, “Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar,” 38-39. 71 H. Weinrich, Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt, 4th edition (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985); W.

Schneider, Grammatik des Biblischen Hebraischen: Ein Lehrbuch (Munchen: Claudius, 2001); E. Talstra, “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible I: Elements of a Theory” (Bibliotheca Orientalis 35, No. 3/4, May-July 1978), 169-174; E. Talstra, “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible II: Syntax and Semantics” (Bibliotheca Orientalis 39, No. 1/2, Jan-Mar 1982), 26-38; and E. Talstra, “Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The Viewpoint of Wolfgang Schneider” (Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 5 no 4, 1992), 269-297.

72 The main resources for this summary were found in Niccacci, Syntax (§2-5), and from E. Talstra, “Text

Grammar and Biblical Hebrew,” JOTT 5/4 (1992), 269f.

Page 35: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

24

and written texts.”73 Essentially, textlinguistics understands all verb forms, particles, variations

in word order, etc. as syntactic signals which orient the author (speaker) to the reader (listener).

These signs function to inform one of the genre of text he or she is reading or listening to,

speaking in terms of type of communication, rather than time of action (tense) or duration/type of

action (aspect).

Taking these cues, one can summarize textlinguistics as describing the function of the

elements of a language in oral and written texts. For Weinrich, an oral or written text is “a

logical (i.e. intelligible and consistent) sequence of linguistic signs, placed between two

significant breaks in communication.”74 This means that the sequence or arrangement of

linguistic signs in a text plays a crucial role in textlinguistics. In this light, syntax can be defined

as “all the grammatical signals in a text that produce a preliminary sorting of the world of

speaker and listener (obstinate linguistic signs).”75 These linguistic signs, then, have two

important roles in textlinguistics. First, they are the principal signals in a text which indicate

breaks, as well as whether or not a break is significant or insignificant. Second, they organize or

arrange the textual world between the speaker and the listener. This dual role of linguistic signs

provides the foundation for the primary goal of the linguist: to observe what elements of a

language are associated with different kinds of texts, and then describe how those elements

function within that text.

From a detailed study of modern written texts, Weinrich concluded that there are two sets

of “tenses” with separate functions within any text. On the one hand, he observed that some

verbal forms refer to the actual situation of communication (that is, the present “tense” event of

73 Niccacci, Syntax, §2. 74 Niccacci, “Syntactic Analysis of Ruth,” LASBF 45 (1995), 105. 75 Talstra, “Text Grammar,” 270.

Page 36: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

25

two people communicating with each other), while, on the other hand, other verbal forms refer to

acts or facts outside the domain shared by the speaker and the listener (that is, events not

“present” in the act of communication). The first set of verbal forms he labeled “discourse” or

“comment,” while the second set he labeled “narration.”76 Thus, discourse or comment indicates

verbal referents present within the actual conversation between speaker and listener, while

narration indicates verbal referents prior to, subsequent with, or still approaching, but not

present in the communicative act.

From these observations he concluded that “verbal forms should be described not on the

basis of their time reference outside the world of text nor on the basis of reference to the mode of

action (either completed or continuous) but rather as linguistic signs that guide and determine the

mode of communication.”77 For Weinrich, verb systems are not inherently tense-based, nor

aspectual, but are systems of linguistic signs that orient the speaker to the listener. Any tensed or

aspectual nuances are only secondarily part of verb systems.

For example, one of the modern languages which Weinrich studied was English. He

found that the English language most often uses present, present perfect, and future verbal forms

to refer directly to the domain of speaker and listener (‘direct speech’), but uses imperfect,

simple past, pluperfect, and conditional verbal forms to refer to what lies outside the domain of

speaker and listener (‘narrative’).

76 It may be helpful to call all the verbal forms associated with direct speech (discourse) as being in the tense of direct speech, while those associated with narration as being in the tense of narration. This is a different way of using “tense” than is normally attributed to the term. Instead of using “tense” later, the term linguistic attitude will be applied (e.g., the attitude of direct speech, or the attitude of narration).

77 Talstra, Text Grammar, 271. Hence the delineation made above of type of communication from time of

action or duration of action.

Page 37: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

26

Table 1: The Distribution of English Verb Tenses temporal axis \\ LA direct speech narrative

past present perfect simple past past perfect

present present imperfect

future future conditional

Beyond these two general verb tenses (direct speech and narration), Weinrich also described

texts from three aspects: linguistic attitude, prominence, and linguistic perspective.78 Linguistic

attitude refers to the orientation of the text (that is, the orientation of the author/speaker to the

reader/listener). In the table above, the columns direct speech and narrative are examples of

linguistic attitude (LA).79 Prominence refers to emphasis or highlighting in a text. From this

aspect come the concepts of foreground and background. In Weinrich’s theory, some verbal

forms occupy the ‘foreground’ or main line of the text, and are the verb forms which push the

story or conversation forward. Other verbal forms occupy the ‘background’, or secondary line of

communication. These provide some kind of background information (antecedent,

contemporaneous, anticipatory, etc.) which is usually critical to understanding the main story

line.

The third aspect, linguistic perspective, refers to three specific areas of the text: retrieved

information, degree zero, and anticipated information. Retrieved information is a kind of

flashback or a reference to information antecedent to the ‘present’ of the narrative, while

anticipated information is a disclosing of information which will be revealed later on in the story.

78 The use of the terms “tense” and “aspect” in this way can be somewhat confusing, and, if misunderstood, very misleading. For example, according to Weinrich, there are three aspects of a text, one of which is tense. The remaining parts of this paper will attempt to be consistent to use the following terms: tense, which refers to narration or direct speech in this theory, will be called “orientation,” for it orients the speaker/author to the listener/reader. For Weinrich, these ‘tenses’ are text-types, or genres – one of which is historical narrative and the other direct speech. The word aspect will be retained, though, for it does not refer to anything like mode of action or kind of action, as it is used in other aspectual theories of the verb. Weinrich uses the term according to its standard definition, as referring to the different parts or elements of his theory.

79 Thus, the aspect of “linguistic attitude” is synonymous with tense.

Page 38: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

These als

Degree z

the mainl

correspon

foregroun

A

shifting o

either be

form with

verb form

belong to

foregroun

forms wh

in more d

T

and Nicc

80

so make up w

zero refers to

line or the m

ndence betw

nd and degre

A final eleme

occurs in a te

homogeneo

hin the same

m within dire

o different lin

nd form in d

hich all belon

detail when a

To summariz

cacci. These Niccacci, Syn

what Weinri

o the level of

main storylin

ween backgro

ee zero. The

ent of Weinr

ext when the

ous or hetero

e linguistic p

ect speech),

nguistic pers

direct speech

ng to the sam

applied to B

e, Weinrich

e can be desc tax, §4.

ich calls the

f the story its

e of the text

ound and sec

e following i

ich’s textlin

ere is a trans

ogeneous. It

perspective (

but is hetero

spectives (e.

h). Transitio

me linguistic

Biblical Hebr

’s linguistic

cribed from t

background

self, the ‘pre

t (the ‘foregr

condary line

illustration m

guistic for th

ition betwee

is homogen

(e.g. from a f

ogeneous wh

g. from a fo

ns are unifor

c perspective

rew.

model provi

three differe

d, or seconda

esent’ of the

round’). It is

information

may help:

his discussio

en one of the

neous when t

foreground v

hen it occurs

reground for

rm when the

e (homogene

ides certain k

nt aspects: li

ary line of co

text, and is s

s helpful to r

n, and betwe

on is tense sh

e three aspec

there is a cha

verb form to

s between ve

rm in narrati

ere is a succe

eous). This w

key element

inguistic atti

ommunicatio

sometimes c

recognize a

en the

hifting.80 Te

cts, and it can

ange of verb

a backgroun

erb forms tha

ive to a

ession of ver

will be expla

ts for Schnei

itude,

27

on.

called

ense

n

b

nd

at

rb

ained

ider

Page 39: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

28

prominence, and linguistic perspective. Linguistic attitude reveals two levels in a text: narrative

and direct speech; prominence (or emphasis) reveals two levels: foreground and background; and

linguistic perspective reveals three levels in a text: antecedent information, degree zero, and

anticipated information. Every text also progresses through a series of tense shifts. When

applied to Biblical Hebrew, the combination of all these elements provides a rich textual relief,

which serves to sort out the world of the author/speaker to the reader/listener.

Schneider’s Application of Textlinguistics to Biblical Hebrew

Wolfgang Schneider’s grammar was important because he was the first Biblical Hebrew

grammarian to use the views of Weinrich in an attempt to understand the use of Biblical Hebrew

verbal forms and sequences.81 By doing so, Schneider stressed the importance of the text by

looking at linguistic units beyond phrases and clauses, concentrating on the formal structure of

texts. Before him, almost all discussion of syntax was concentrated on phrases and clauses.82

This was an important change in the study of Biblical Hebrew syntax. Ever since then “a

description of syntax should take into account the various linguistic forms which accompany the

process of information.”83 Many Biblical Hebrew grammars advocate a functional view of

grammar where different functional elements of language are first defined and then a specific

form in Biblical Hebrew is shown to “fit” that function. With Schneider, however, forms are

first described, and then are shown to have a certain function within a text. This principle

81 C. H. J. van der Merwe, “An Overview of Hebrew Narrative Syntax,” in Ellen van Wolde, ed., Narrative

Syntax and the Hebrew Bible (Boston: Brill, 2002), 9. 82 See the grammars by Gesenius and Joüon for examples. 83 Niccacci, Syntax, §5.

Page 40: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

29

enabled Schneider to define syntax much like Weinrich, as “the description of linguistic forms

that carry out the process of communication.”84

When Schneider looked at the distributional data he found that in narrative texts, 75% of

the verbal forms were wayyiqtol forms, while in non-narrative texts, 50% of the verbal forms

were yiqtol forms and about 20% were w-qatal forms. From these statistics, Schneider

concluded:

The two verbal forms wayyiqtol and yiqtol can be called the main tenses because they can be implemented as the main opposition in the scheme designed by Weinrich. In his grammar, therefore, the use of wayyiqtol or yiqtol is not determined by time reference nor by verbal aspect – that is, by any type of incomplete (imperfect) action. Rather, it is determined by the orientation of the speaker in the text.85

Having made this initial conclusion, he made the following observations. First, he noted that

wayyiqtol forms build the main storyline of narrative texts, while yiqtol and qetol (participle)

forms are used primarily in direct speech sections of narrative texts. Using Weinrich’s

terminology, the wayyiqtol is the primary (foreground) “orientation” form in narrative texts,

while the yiqtol is the primary (foreground) “orientation” form in discursive, or direct speech,

texts.

The second observation Schneider made concerned foreground and background in both

narrative and discursive texts. In Biblical Hebrew, the qatal conjugation is what Schneider

called a “secondary” tense. He thought that qatal clauses referred to “situations already existent

prior to that of communication (either logically or chronologically).”86 For narrative texts, this

meant that when a qatal clause was employed by the author the main storyline was slowed down

so that background information could be introduced into the plot. The plot was continued once

84 Talstra, “Text Grammar,” 269. 85 Talstra, “Text Grammar,” 275-276. 86 Talstra, “Text Grammar,” 277.

Page 41: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

another w

between

grammar

would de

A final ar

texts and

domains

two chara

one of tw

N

historical

87

to anticipatforms yiqtoinformation

88

narrative teby saying, implement

89

wayyiqtol for

background

rians.88 Buil

escribe the b

rea of summ

d discursive t

of communi

acters within

wo ways: nar

Narration orie

l events. Wh

Another backgted backgroundol and qotel: wn, and weqatal

For instance, Gexts, but could “One might su

t these data in a

Here, domains

rm was emp

d and foregro

lding off of t

asic element

mary for Schn

texts. In Bib

icators: the d

n a narrated

rration, or di

ents the spea

hen in the do

ground form red activity or fa

w-x-qatal for anl for anticipated

GKC §111c idnot explain wh

uggest that tradan overall theo

s refers to the t

ployed.87 Ta

ound was hel

the previous

ts of Biblica

neider’s syst

blical Hebrew

domain betw

story.89 In e

scourse.

aker/narrator

omain of the

ecognized by Sacts. In discursntecedent or recd or future info

dentified the abhy this was so

ditional grammory for using th

two sets of spe

lstra made a

lpful to expl

illustration

al Hebrew tex

tem is how a

w, Schneide

ween the auth

each set, the

r to the listen

e author/read

Schneider in nasive texts, therecovered informormation.

bility of w-x-qausing his theor

mar found the rihe tenses.” (Tal

eakers/listeners

a special note

ain the obse

(pg. 31), thi

xts:

an author tra

r understood

hor and read

speaker is “

ner/reader th

der, the obse

arrative texts we are several ba

mation, qatal fo

atal clauses to rry about the veight distributiolstra, “Text Gra

s within the bib

e that this di

rvations mad

s one shows

ansitions betw

d that there w

der, and the d

“oriented” to

hrough the re

rvations not

was אשר + yiqtackground formor present or co

replace wayyiqerb (aspectual)nal data but diammar”, 278)

blical text.

stinction

de by earlier

s how Schne

ween narrati

were two

domain betw

the listener

ecounting of

ed above ab

tol, which referms to the foregoncurrent

qtol clauses in . Talstra respod not find a wa

30

r

ider

ive

ween

in

f

out

rred ground

onded ay to

Page 42: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

31

historical narrative texts apply (wayyiqtol as the mainline form, qatal as a secondary form). The

author can transition out of this orientation in two ways. First, he can change from narration into

direct speech (a change in domain from author to speaker), or make a comment directly to the

reader/listener (using the verb forms of direct speech). Talstra summarizes this well,

No new speaker has been introduced apart from the narrator, as is usually the case in direct speech. Only the speaker’s orientation has changed from that of a narrative domain to a discursive one. This means that the speaker/writer has changed from narrating a situation outside the domain shared by writer and reader to a discursive type of speech about something now present within the domain of bother writer and reader…The result is a kind of direct speech that proceeds in one direction from the writer to the reader.90

To signal this new “orientation” the author will can use a phrase such as על־כן, and often

making use of a yiqtol form (c.f. Genesis 2:24-25). Though the orientation between narrator and

reader has changed, it is important to note that the domain has not changed.91

A domain change happens when two characters within a story begin to communicate with

each other. In this case, the narrator himself becomes virtually silent, and the characters are

allowed to speak for themselves. The main markers in a narrative text to signal this change are

in wayyiqtol or infinitive forms. Once this change in domain is signaled by the דבר or אמר

grammatical forms in the text, the “actors” within the narrative text now take on the roles of

speaker and listener, creating a new domain. Within this new domain, the speaker’s perspective

can have either a discursive or narrative orientation, just as the narrator in the author-reader

domain. Though Schneider does not seem to delineate any syntactical difference between the

90 Talstra, “Text Grammar,” 280-281. 91 Remember, domain refers to who is communicating. In Biblical Hebrew, there are two domains: 1)

author-reader, and 2) characters within the narrative itself. Orientation refers to the communicative situation between the speaker and listener in either of the domains above. There are two ways a speaker can be oriented to a listener: 1) narration, and 2) comment.

Page 43: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

32

narrator as speaker and an actor in the story as speaker, Niccacci does. In this regard, Niccacci

goes beyond Schneider, which the table below reflects:

Table 2: Domain and Orientation

Schneider Domain \\ Orientation Narration Discourse

Author and Reader

and

Two characters in plot

Narration Comment / Direct Speech

Niccacci Domain \\ Orientation Narration Discourse

Author and Reader Historical narrative (past axis)

Comment (present/future axis)

Two characters in plot Oral narrative (past axis)

Direct speech (present/future axis)

Summary

Schneider represents a paradigm shift in the study of Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax.

Though those who follow Schneider build from his work in several different directions, there are

certain elements of his application of Weinrich to Biblical Hebrew that stand out. These include:

a focus on units longer than the sentence, a distributional approach to syntax (‘form-to-

function’), and the textlinguistic aspects of linguistic attitude (orientation), prominence

(foreground and background), and linguistic perspective (axes of past, present, and future).

The Textlinguistic Approach of Alviero Niccacci

Alongside Weinrich and Schneider, Niccacci believes that “the verb forms in a narrative

constitute the main clue to the author’s perspective in presenting his information.”92 In this

regard, “Verb forms should be seen as linguistic signs at the speaker’s or writer’s disposal to

92 Niccacci, “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” in Robert D. Bergen, ed., Biblical Hebrew and Discourse

Linguistics (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 175.

Page 44: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

33

present his information in a meaningful, forcible way so as to influence and guide the response

of the listener or reader.”93 As with Weinrich, Niccacci does not view tense as the same thing as

time: tense refers to the author’s attitude (narration or direct speech), which orients the reader to

the author’s strategy, while time is a temporal category referring to either the past, present, or

future.

Beyond the work of Weinrich and Schneider, Niccacci contributes much to the study of

Biblical Hebrew syntax. The bedrock of his theory is the distinction between a verbal sentence,

in which a finite verb form is in the first-position in the sentence (e.g., wayyiqtol), and a

compound nominal clause, in which the finite verb is in the second place (e.g., x-qatal). Outside

of this, his main contribution is in the area of direct speech, where he goes into much greater

detail than Schneider, including his comments on the syntax of poetic texts.

First-Position vs. Second-Position in the Sentence

For Niccacci there are two main criteria in analyzing verb forms: position in the sentence, and

position in the text.94 When a verb form comes first in a sentence it is a verbal sentence, and can

be used to give degree zero, or mainline information (e.g., wayyiqtol in narrative). When a verb

form comes second in a sentence, it is no longer considered a verbal sentence, but a compound

nominal clause. As a rule, these can only be used to indicate information on the subsidiary line

of communication. This simple distinction serves to show that the keystone of Niccacci’s

approach is the distinction between the first-position in a sentence and the second.95

93 Niccacci, “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” 175. 94 Niccacci, “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” 176. 95 Niccacci, “Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence: Coherence of the Hebrew Verbal System,”

ZAW 108 (1996), 434.

Page 45: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

34

In its most basic form, this distinction can be described as follows, “A verbal clause

begins with a verb, [and] a noun clause begins with a noun.”96 As Longacre notes, “[GKC

passed on to us] a certain insistence of the Arab grammarians that any clause that starts with a

noun should be regarded as a noun clause (whether or not it has a finite verb), while any clause

that starts with a verb should be regarded as a verb clause.”97 As in Gesenius’ day, this is still a

point of contention among Hebrew scholars. Even so, for Niccacci’s theory to work, this basic

distinction must be made.98

Once it is made, one can properly talk about the categories of prominence and linguistic

perspective. This is because Niccacci sees a correspondence between a clause-initial finite verb

form and the foreground (mainline of communication), and between a second-position finite verb

form and the background (subsidiary line of communication). This is based on the fact that “in

narrative a verbal sentence is a linguistic sign of connection, while a nominal sentence (simple or

compound) is a sign of interruption in the mainline of communication.”99 As signs of

interruptions, nominal clauses contain dependent verbs from a syntactic viewpoint, and a

subsidiary line of communication (background) from a textlinguistic standpoint.100 The

distinction between these two kinds of sentences (verbal and nominal) is the foundation of

Niccacci’s verbal theory.

96 Niccacci, Syntax, §6. 97 Robert Longacre, Joseph (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 62, and GKC, §141-142. 98 Niccacci also further delineates two kinds of nominal clauses: a simple nominal clause (SNC) and a

compound nominal clause (CNC). A SNC contains no verbal element at all, while a CNC is one in which an ‘x’ element is followed by a finite verb (e.g., x-qatal or waw-x-yiqtol).

99 Niccacci, “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” 177. 100 Niccacci, “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” 177-178.

Page 46: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

35

Narration

In essence, narration is the recounting of events or states which are not present or current in the

relationship involving the narrator and the reader, while direct speech is the present interaction

between the speaker and listener. As with Schneider, Niccacci considers wayyiqtol as the

dominant form of narrative, while yiqtol is the dominant form of direct speech.101 Qatal, in both

narrative and discourse, is usually employed as a secondary form (w-x-qatal). The following

description of the verb forms in narration is only rudimentary. For questions regarding more

advanced grammar, refer to Niccacci’s Syntax or one of the several articles listed in the

bibliography.

To begin a historical narrative text, Biblical Hebrew usually employs secondary line

forms. “All the necessary information previous to a story is conveyed by nominal constructions

having a finite verb form in the second position, a wəqatal or a sentence with no finite verb form

at all.”102 The following forms convey antecedent information or setting: waw-x-qatal is used

for an event or information that occurred in the past, waw-x-yiqtol and wəqatal are used for a

repeated or continuous event or information, and waw-simple nominal clause (with or without a

participle) is used for a contemporary event or information.103

The mainline of the narrative does not properly begin until a narrative wayyiqtol form is

used. Wayyiqtol is also the form used to continue the mainline forward, usually in a

101 Niccacci, Syntax, §22. For yiqtol in direct speech, Niccacci particularly notes the different roles for

indicative yiqtol and volitive yiqtol (jussive/cohortative). All these verb forms are on the main line of communication.

102 Niccacci, “Coherence of Hebrew Verb System,” 438. 103 A “short independent narrative” can also be considered antecedent information. When this happens,

usually a waw-x-qatal construction is followed by a string of continuation wayyiqtol. In this case, the wayyiqtol are not narrative forms and take on the time value of the previous verb form. See Niccacci, “Basic Facts and Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose,” in Ellen van Wolde, ed., Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002), 172-173; Syntax, §27.

Page 47: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

36

chronological sequence. This narrative sequence can be broken when the author wants to convey

information on the secondary level, to express a number of events or states in relation to the

mainline event.

The same constructions used at the beginning of a narrative to provide antecedent

information are also used here, but can function in slightly different ways: the waw-x-qatal

construction can be used to express an antecedent circumstance, simultaneous event, contrast, or

emphasis;104 a simple nominal clause, usually preceded by a waw, can be used to express a

simultaneous circumstance;105 and the wəqatal and (waw-)x-yiqtol constructions can be used to

express background, repeated action.106

In all of these constructions a homogeneous tense shift occurs, moving from the

foreground (wayyiqtol) to the background, but remaining in the same linguistic perspective.

When these secondary line forms are linked to a preceding wayyiqtol the background forms

indicate a pause in the narrative, providing relief in the text. When they are linked to a following

wayyiqtol, these same background forms no longer indicate a pause in the text, but a significant

break in the text, which delimits one text from another.107 In this case, the background forms are

actually providing antecedent information previous to the beginning of a new narrative chain. In

this case, a new episode or text has begun, and a new analysis can take place.

The following chart provides a summary of the basics of BH narrative syntax:

104 Niccacci, Syntax, §40-42, 48. 105 Niccacci, Syntax, §43, 82. 106 The only difference between weqatal and waw-x-yiqtol is that the waw-x-yiqtol construction adds

emphasis to the ‘x’ element. See Niccacci, Syntax, §46. 107 This kind of break can either indicate the beginning of a new text, or simply the beginning of a new

episode within the same text. In this case, one needs to appeal to semantic criteria (literary devices, context, change in characters or setting, and meaning) to judge whether a break is significant (new text) or insignificant (new episode, same text). “By itself, syntax can only signal a break; it cannot signal the textual significance of that break” (Niccacci, “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” 179).

Page 48: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

37

Table 3: The Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Historical Narrative108 ANTECEDENT

Beginning of Narrative (secondary level)

FOREGROUND → Main line

(main level, narrative sequence)

BACKGROUND → Secondary line (secondary level)

x-qatal → (a single event in the past; can be extended into a short independent

narrative with continuation wayyiqtol)

non-verbal sentence → (contemporaneous state w/o ptcp, contemporaneous action w/ ptcp)

x-yiqtol → or wəqatal →

(repeated, habitual action)

→ wayyiqtol sequence

→ qatal or w-x-qatal (only in the two-element syntactic

construction with or without a preceding wayehi, c.f. Syntax §126-127)

→ (w-)x-qatal (anteriority, simultaneity,

contrast, emphasis)

→ (w-)non-verbal sentence (contemporaneity)

→ (w-)x-yiqtol or → wəqatal

(repetition, habitual)

→ yiqtol (anticipatory, c.f. Gen 2:19b)

This table helps to show that Niccacci does not outright deny the presence of tense and aspect:

We can affirm that verb forms have fixed temporal reference when they are verbal sentences and/or indicate the mainline of communication both in narrative and in direct speech. On the other hand, they have a relative temporal reference when they are nominal clauses and indicate a subsidiary line of communication….Aspect, in the sense of mode of action, is…a legitimate category of the Hebrew verbal system in the subsidiary line of communication. But in the mainline of communication we can readily admit tenses.109

Accordingly, fixed tense (as in temporal reference) corresponds to the foreground (verbal

sentences), while aspect corresponds to background (nominal sentences).

Direct Speech

In narrative texts there is only one mainline (which lies on the past temporal axis), but in direct

speech there are three mainlines corresponding to the three temporal axes (past, present, future).

As an outcome, the author has more freedom to switch from past, present, and future, than he did

in the domain of historical narrative. As before, this present summary only reviews the basic

elements of the verb forms in direct speech.

108Adapted from Niccacci, “Interpretation of Malachi,” 56. 109 Niccacci, “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” in Robert D. Bergen, ed., Biblical Hebrew and Discourse

Linguistics (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 129.

Page 49: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

38

The past in direct speech is represented by ‘oral narrative.’ Unlike historical narrative,

oral narrative cannot begin with antecedent information. Instead, it begins with the mainline,

which is started by a qatal, an x-qatal, or even a simple nominal clause (with or without a

participle). Like historical narrative, oral narrative progresses forward, usually chronologically,

with wayyiqtol forms, and uses the same secondary forms as historical narrative.

The future also has a mainline in direct speech, as contrasted with narration, where it only

has a secondary, anticipatory form (yiqtol). The foreground of the future can be expressed using

indicative x-yiqtol, volitive forms (jussive/cohortative/imperative), or the simple nominal clause.

The indicative future (non-volitive) begins its mainline with a non-verbal sentence or an initial x-

yiqtol.110 The mainline is continued through the use of a wəqatal, which can then transition to

background with a w-x-yiqtol.111 The transition wəqatal → w-x-yiqtol is typical in discourse, and

is used to express contrast between two characters or events.112

The volitive future begins its mainline with any of the direct volitive forms: jussive,

cohortative, or imperative. For Niccacci, every first-place yiqtol is jussive, though an x-yiqtol

can be either indicative or jussive.113 In the latter case, “an x-YIQTOL (or WAW-x-YIQTOL)

construction can labeled as jussive when preceded by one of the direct volitive forms.”114 These

first-place volitive forms can be carried forward by w-yiqtol constructions in the foreground, or

by x-imperative or x-yiqtol forms to express secondary line (background) information.

110 This is the only way to indicate the simple future in Hebrew at the beginning of a discourse. A yiqtol in

the first position would be a jussive (according to Niccacci). 111 Niccacci notes that although wəqatal always begins a sentence, it can never be used at the beginning of

an independent text unit; it is a continuation, foreground form (Syntax, §57). 112 Niccacci, Syntax, §11. 113 C.f. Niccacci, Syntax, §55. 114 Niccacci, Syntax, §55 (p.78).

Page 50: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

39

The present in direct speech is much simpler: the simple nominal clause indicates both

the main line and subsidiary line. Often, a simple nominal clause beginning with waw (w-SNC)

indicates background information.

The table below is representative of the major functions of the verb forms in direct

speech (these will also be the major functions of the verb forms in poetry):

Table 4: The Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Direct Speech/Poetry115

Temporal Axis Main level of communication (foreground)

Secondary level of communication (background)

Past

(x-)qatal → wayyiqtol (continuation) SNC (noun + ptcp) → wayyiqtol

or

SNC → wayyiqtol (c.f. Ex. 6:2-3) (SNC seems to provide ‘speaker’ information)

→ x-qatal (antecedent/retrospective circumstance)

→ SNC

(synchronous circumstance, contemporaneity)

→ x-yiqtol or → wəqatal (repetition, habit, explication, description)

→ yiqtol

(prospective, anticipatory)

Present SNC (with or without ptcp) (waw-) SNC (with or without ptcp) (contemporaneous circumstance)

Future Indicative SNC (esp. with ptcp) → wəqatal

or initial x-yiqtol → wəqatal

(sometimes as the ‘habitual’ present)

→ x-yiqtol (habitude, custom)

(weqatal → w-x-yiqtol indicates emphasis on ‘x’)

Future Volitive imperative → w-(x-)yiqtol

or (x-)yiqtol (coh/juss) → wəyiqtol

→ x-imperative

→ x-yiqtol

Note: Imperative → (volitive) wəyiqtol = purpose (‘in order to’) Imperative → (indicative) wəqatal = consequence/result (‘thus’, ‘therefore’)

Poetic Syntax Niccacci suggests that “the Biblical Hebrew verb system is basically the same in prose and in

poetry…at least, the same system is to be applied unless it proves impossible.”116 In this regard,

“The functions of the verbal forms in poetry are basically the same as in prose, more precisely in

115 Adapted from Niccacci, “Interpretation of Malachi,” 58. 116 Niccacci, “Interpretation of Malachi,” 60n9.

Page 51: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

40

direct speech.”117 Niccacci did not come to this opinion in a short period of time; rather, it was

an evolving work of his which is still in the realm of hypothesis. In this section of the paper, the

goal is to note different stages of his hypothesis of BH poetry and summarize his current view,

noted above.

Niccacci made his first real explanation of BH poetry in his Syntax.118 There he

commented, “Although it is possible to obtain a reasonably consistent account of how verb forms

are used in prose, for poetry the problem is much more complicated.”119 He then outlined a few

of the “problems” which he then had with the verb system in BH poetry.120 The first problem he

listed was with the universality of yiqtol for past narrative, the present, and the future tenses.121

Much of the debate centered around the relationship between an archaic use of the yiqtol used in

reference to the past and the wayyiqtol form. A second problem that Niccacci observed was the

use of qatal and yiqtol forms in parallel lines in reference to the same tense.122

These two “problems” led him to conclude that “the verb forms in poetry do not have a

fixed tense,”123 and that “it is at least likely that for the use of verb forms poetry had its own

rules which were not the same as for prose.”124 In the end he asked the question, “What was the

117 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 247. 118 Niccacci, Syntax, §168-174. 119 Niccacci, Syntax, §171. 120 By “problem,” Niccacci meant that the verb forms used in poetry seem inconsistent and are much more

complicated to explain. Then, and now, the use of the verb forms in BH poetry was a matter open for much debate among his contemporaries.

121 Niccacci, Syntax, §171. 122 Niccacci, Syntax, §172. These two “problems” will also be two of the main ones addressed in his most

recent article. 123 Niccacci, Syntax, §173. 124 Niccacci, Syntax, §170.

Page 52: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

41

guiding criterion in poetry for choosing between the various verb forms?”125 At this point in his

research his answer and conclusion was intellectually honest,

This problem has yet to receive a complete answer. Style, the desire for variety, the chiastic arrangement of constituents…etc. can explain some of the cases; but well-defined criteria which can throw light on the problem as a whole have yet to be found. Whereas prose usually provides clear indications of the tense when the action takes place…poetry often gives no such clues. The tense of a verb form, therefore, has to be determined on the basis of context and other exegetical factors. This explains the differences, often quite marked, among the various translations.126

His descriptions about the apparent problems of the Hebrew verb in poetry were on target, and

his conclusions at the time seemed appropriate, yet he remained somewhat optimistic about an

approach he thought would yield useful results. As with the verb system in prose, Niccacci saw

no resolution in appealing primarily to the aspect of an action. For him, a helpful direction was

to look at how the fundamental driving point of the first position in a sentence in BH prose does

not seem to apply in BH poetry. This he stated in a footnote, “It would seem, then, that in poetry

the criterion of first position in the sentence, which is fundamental in prose, does not apply. This

fact could provide an important key to understanding the verb system in poetry which still

remains a mystery.”127 At that point in his scholarship, though he had an idea that the first-

position in the sentence would play an important role in the solution, Niccacci could not find any

well-defined criteria which could shed light on the problem as a whole. Since then, he has

written several important articles which specifically address the use of verb forms in poetic

texts.128

125 Niccacci, Syntax, §174. 126 Niccacci, Syntax, §174. 127 Niccacci, Syntax, 206n94. 128 In chronological order, these appear: The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, JSOTSS 86

(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); “Syntactic Analysis of Jonah,” LASBF 46 (1996), 9-32; “Analyzing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 74 (1997), 77-93; “Poetic Syntax and

Page 53: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

42

One of those articles, “Analyzing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” has an important role in

Niccacci’s future research. In it Niccacci set out to provide “a simple, unpretentious, yet

effective way of analyzing BHP starting from the smallest units.”129 He did so by indicating the

three main characteristics of poetry versus prose.

First, he listed segmented versus linear communication. By this he meant that narrative is

marked by sequence and linear progression, whereas poetry is marked by repetition and a round-

about way of communicating. Second, he listed “parallelism of similar bits of information

versus sequence of different bits of information.”130 This second characteristic is closely linked

to the first, and is in essence, how the first plays itself out. The round-about way of

communicating (segmented) is almost always a parallelism of similar bits of information. In

doing so, he notes that “the four kinds of parallelism identified by A. Berlin – grammatical,

lexical, semantic, and phonologic – constitute the best description of BHP known to me.

Normally, they agree and strengthen each other.”131 These first two characteristics begin to draw

together a syntactical and rhetorical study of BH poetry, which was discussed earlier in this

present paper.

Niccacci’s third observation is more relevant to this paper; namely, that poetry consists of

a non-detectable verbal system versus the detectable system of prose. In this regard, his view

Interpretation of Malachi,” LASBF 51 (2001), 55-107; and “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry” (in Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, eds., Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 247-268. Several other articles were also written by Niccacci that deal with poetry, but they are written in Italian, a language not translatable by the present researcher. These are: “Proverbi 23,12-25,” LASBF 47 (1997), 33-56; “Proverbi 23,26-24,22,” LASBF 48 (1998), 49-104; “Osea 1-3: Composizione E Senso,” LASBF 56 (2006), 71-104. Given the repetition of ideas often given in Niccacci’s articles, it is assumed that the points made in these Italian articles are also made in his English articles.

129 Niccacci, “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 77. 130 Niccacci, “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 77. 131 Niccacci, “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 90.

Page 54: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

43

had not changed much since his Syntax. He states, “BHP remains a mystery from the point of

view of the verbal system used while prose shows a substantial coherence.”132 He identifies the

“free alternation” of qatal, yiqtol, and wəqatal forms as the “most remarkable area of

disagreement.” He also identifies a variety of word order and ellipsis (gapping) as continuing

problems. Niccacci had not yet identified the key features of poetry which would bring syntax

and rhetoric together.

By the time Niccacci published “Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi” (2001), he

had changed his mind on the “detection” of the verb system. In fact, he made the following

comment in a footnote, “I have become more and more convinced that the BH verb system is

basically the same in prose and in poetry.”133 The major turning point for Niccacci seems to

have been the combination of prose syntax and segmented communication. In early articles he

noted an apparent contrast between the two concepts, whereas now he seems to have embraced

them as brothers. In other words, what had previously blinded him from detecting a verb system

in poetry now gave him the vision to see more clearly how syntax in poetry functioned.

Segmented communication has as its consequence the ability for verb forms to switch “from one

temporal axis to the other more freely than direct speech. This results in a great variety of, and

more abrupt transition from, one verb form to the other.”134 Thus, he “detected” a verb system

that looked much like the one present in prose (direct prose), though he had not been able to

describe how this system functioned.

Several years later he finally published an article which dealt wholly with the verbal

system in poetry, “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry” (2006). It is the most

132 Niccacci, “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 91. 133 Niccacci, “Interpretation of Malachi,” 60n9. 134 Niccacci, “Interpretation of Malachi,” 59.

Page 55: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

44

complete articulation of a textlinguistic solution to syntax in Biblical Hebrew Poetry to date (by

any author). In it, Niccacci brings all of his observations together.

He begins by reminding the reader that he has changed his mind about the verbal forms in

Hebrew poetry in two ways. First, he now thinks that the verb forms in poetry need to have

different functions, as they do in prose. Second, he thinks that these functions are basically the

same as in direct speech prose. The main difference between direct speech prose and direct

speech poetry is the way they communicate. He observed, “Prose in general, consists of

information conveyed in a sequence, while poetry communicates segments of information in

parallelism.”135 This allows poetry to more freely switch from one temporal axis to another than

direct speech prose. In many ways this makes the analysis of poetic texts more difficult, but in

his view, more fruitful.

Along these lines, Niccacci also identified two syntactic constructions that are crucial for

his analysis: 1) the variation of qatal/yiqtol, and 2) first-place yiqtol. Concerning the variation of

qatal/yiqtol, which most scholars simply smooth over in their translations, he noted that “one

should expect different verbal forms to play different functions and analyze the texts

accordingly.”136 Thus, the normal rules of direct speech apply, and in Niccacci’s theory, fruitful

observations will be made when the exegete keeps these in mind.

Concerning first-place yiqtol, he first reminds the reader about his view that “sentence-

initial yiqtol is volitive, or jussive, even though its vocalization is not distinctively jussive or is

not jussive at all.”137 For him, a problematic use of the “jussive yiqtol” still remained when it

135 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 248. 136 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 250. Niccacci gives ample illustrations of how he analyzes this

phenomenon in the same article. 137 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 251.

Page 56: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

45

was used to describe the past, in which case it does not clearly have a volitive function. In order

to address this problem, Niccacci took three sections to discuss first place yiqtol as a double-duty

modifier (<x-> yiqtol), the volitive functions of yiqtol, and a final section on the protasis function

of volitive yiqtol. Though these specific discussions will not be taken up here, where appropriate

in the following analyses they will be further explained.

In conclusion to this article, he made several important summary statements for the use of

the various verb forms in poetry. First, he summarized that there is no justification for taking

qatal or yiqtol as equivalent verb forms. They are used for different function in BH poetry, as

are their continuation forms: qatal → wayyiqtol, yiqtol → weqatal (indicative), and yiqtol →

weyiqtol (indirect volitive).

Second, he noted that each of the verb forms refers to its own temporal axis, as in direct

speech. In this regard, qatal and wayyiqtol indicate the past axis, while x-yiqtol and weqatal

indicate the axis of the future. An exception to this general rule occurs when x-yiqtol/weqatal

are in parallel with qatal/wayyiqtol and indicate the past. In this case, “the former indicate

repeated/habitual/explicatory/descriptive information (background) while the latter

punctual/single information (foreground).”138

Third, and finally, he observed that sentence-initial yiqtol and its continuation form w-

yiqtol convey volitive information. When they are used in the axis of the past (the problem noted

earlier), they seem to indicate purpose, which he called ‘volitive consequence.’139

138 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 266. 139 See his discussion in “Verbal System in Poetry,” 261-263.

Page 57: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

46

Summary

According to Niccacci, the verb in BH poetry functions basically the same as it does in direct

speech prose. The main difference between the two is the kind of communication generally used

between them: segmental communication (poetry) vs. sequential communication (prose). The

fact of sequential communication (also observed by Berlin) has important effects on the analysis

of BH poetry.

First, it means that the reader must slow down. As Niccacci notes, “This analysis poses a

challenge not easy to face.”140 The analysis of poetry becomes much more difficult, but also

more respectful of the text and the nuances of meaning present in the verbal forms. Analyzing

poetry is not the same as analyzing prose, and the reader should expect to take longer to observe

the relationships between clauses and lines. Second, it means that the reader must pay careful

attention to alternating verb forms, particularly qatal and yiqtol, and their continuation forms. In

this regard, a syntactic analysis of texts, before rhetorical function analysis, seems most

beneficial. Third, and finally, it means that a rhetorical analysis of the text is very important.

Though earlier rhetorical studies of BH poetry were left incomplete because they had trouble

providing a clear syntactic analysis, the current study would likewise suffer if it did not finish its

work with rhetorical analysis. The linguistic is concerned both with the syntax of the clause and

the structure of the line.

Application through Analysis and Evaluation

Using the previous discussions concerning poetry and textlinguistics, the following texts will be

analyzed: Jonah 2, Psalm 1, and Psalm 2. The most important methodological and syntactical

presuppositions coming into this analysis are shared with Niccacci:

140 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 267-268.

Page 58: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

47

As a norm one should assign to the various verb forms their usual function(s) and interpret the text accordingly, rather than to make the analysis of the various verb forms dependent on one’s own interpretation. It is only reasonable to assume that if a writer uses different verb forms, he has in mind different temporal or aspectual references. Our task is to interpret his mind on the basis of the verb forms he uses.141 Syntactic analysis should always guide the interpretation. Our understanding of syntax should never follow the lead of interpretation and semantics, because it is possible that an author may choose to change the order of events for his own reasons. The interpreter has no right to redress the “real order,” giving the verb forms a tense values that he chooses himself. The author is free and sovereign over his information. We interpreters should try to understand and respect the author’s choice, whatever the logic and strategy may be.142

This will be the foundation of the following analyses, and as a matter of choice, all verb forms

will be analyzed using Niccacci’s verb chart (pg. 44). Periphery discussions will be undertaken

when deemed important to the analysis of the text. By way of reminder, this is meant to be a

syntactic analysis, not a rhetorical one. As mentioned in the earlier section on methodology,

syntactic analysis precedes rhetorical analysis, such that former is supported by the latter. In

some instances below (e.g., Psalm 2:7), clause division may be different than line division.

Jonah 2

The first test case for the textlinguistic approach of Alviero Niccacci is the poetic text of Jonah 2.

This seems an obvious choice, since Niccacci himself has done a syntactic analysis of Jonah as a

whole.143 It also serves to show how a narrative text can shift into direct speech, and out of

141 Niccacci, “Interpretation of Malachi,” 59. Again, as mentioned in a previous note, textlinguistics, as it

is used here, is concerned with authorial intent. The main contention of this paper is that the verb forms themselves guide the interpreter so that he or she may correctly interpret the intention of the author. As a consequence, it is important to distinguish between the feelings of the author and the author’s intent. A good author, which is presupposed of the biblical authors, will mean what he says and say what he means.

142 Niccacci, “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” 182. See also his discussion on 181-182. 143 Niccacci, “Syntactic Analysis of Jonah,” LASBF 46 (1996), 9-32. His comments concerning the syntax

of the poetic section (§3) are sparse compared to his notes for the rest of Jonah. This is most likely due to the development of his poetic syntax, which was summarized above. Hopefully some of the details will be filled in here.

Page 59: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

48

direct speech back into narrative. For discourse approaches, only Chisholm and Tucker have

been consulted in correlation with Jonah.144 The most accessible commentators make little

mention of the verb tenses in their works. In this regard, perhaps this section might have

something to contribute to the discussion.145

Narrative Introduction to the Poetic Section (2.1-3a)

ג גדול וימן .Yhwh appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah את־יונה לבלע יהוה ד

ג ויהי And it was146 that Jonah was in the stomach of the fish יונה במעי הד

ה .three days and three nights לילות׃ שלשה ימים ושלש

ה אל־יהוה אלהיו ויתפלל Jonah prayed to YHWH his God יונ

,from the stomach of the fish ממעי הדגה׃

אמר ,and he said וי

The narrative text which sets up the poem is fairly straightforward, following the normal “rules”

of prose texts. The wayyiqtol forms give progression to the narrative along the mainline of

communication, showing continuation along the narrative timeline. The poetic section is

embedded using ויאמר, and, as such, remains on the mainline of communication.147 The prayer,

as an event, should be seen as one event on the narrative plot line, even though the actual prayer

itself is an embedded direct speech discourse. It gives the reader a snapshot into the mind of

Jonah, providing an entire section of relief and offering a dramatic pause on the storyline.

144 Robert B. Chisolm, Jr., “A Workbook for Intermediate Hebrew” (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006); W.

Dennis Tucker, Jr., “Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text” (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006). Robert Longacre also has written an article on the textlinguistics of Jonah, but he chose not to make any comments on the poetic section.

145 For syntactic analysis in this section consistent reference will be made to the table on page 44. 146 Tucker notes that ויהי should not be taken as the macro-syntactic sign of narrative as in 1:1 and 3:1, but

is only a mainline discourse form in the course of a scene (Handbook, 48). 147 Tucker, Handbook, 50.

Page 60: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

49

Within the embedded prayer, Jonah speaks primarily toward God, but also to the reader.

Sometimes it is helpful to think of the narrative storyline as a motion picture. If this were the

case, the audience would see and hear Jonah speaking from the fish’s stomach. If the transition

verb were לאמר, then the audience would see Jonah praying from the fish, but would be

listening to the voice of the narrator recounting Jonah’s prayer.

Stanza 1, Strophe 1: Jonah’s Call and God’s Answer (2:3b-e)

ראתי רה לי אל־יהוה ק I called out of my distress to YHWH, A 2.3b" מצ

 יענני and then He answered me; B 2.3c ו

From the depth of Sheol I cried for help; C 2.3d שועתימבטן שאול

עת י׃ שמ You heard my voice. D 2.3e קול

The first stanza in Jonah’s prayer serves to provide a great example of how lines in parallel can

develop along foreground/background lines of communication, as well as recount historical

information in a segmented sequence. Chisholm has noted, “Verses 3-8 form a narrative of sorts,

but it does not proceed in an a to z sequential manner.”148 Instead of following sequential

chronology, the poet will again and again revisit different parts of the narrative sequence in a

more segmented, non-linear manner.

The analysis begins with the qatal verb form קראתי. In historical narrative this form

functions to provide antecedent, background information,149 but according to Niccacci’s theory it

148 Chisholm, Workbook, 56. 149 C.f. Tucker, Handbook, 50. It is also important to understand Tucker’s terminology. For him, the

poetic section (2:3-10) is, in its entirety, an off-line expository discourse. Here, Tucker has the whole text (the book of Jonah) in view. Within the off-line embedded oral narrative (beginning in 2:3), the initial qatal is a mainline form. That is, it is a mainline form in an off-line discourse.

Page 61: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

50

begins the foreground, or mainline, of an oral narrative in the past axis.150 Thus, according to

Niccacci, Jonah is recounting the narrative past on the discourse mainline, recalling a time when

he formerly called out of the Lord in distress.151 This is new information in the story, as before

the poem no mention is made of Jonah’s cry for help.

Line B (2.3c) is made up of the wayyiqtol form ויענני. Having already begun the oral

narrative, this form simply carries it forward as one would expect in direct speech; first, Jonah

called for help, then the Lord answered him. As Chisholm notes, “The wayyiqtol is sequential to

the preceding verb.”152 These two lines, 2.3b-c, are paralleled by 2.3d-e.

Line C (2.3d) is the first ‘pause’ in the oral narrative recounted by Jonah, made up of an

x-qatal clause. In this pause, Jonah revisits the events he just referenced in line A (2.3b). In the

first half of the stanza there is a sequence of events from initial qatal → wayyiqtol forms, while

in the second half of the stanza there is no such development (x-qatal → qatal). The second part

of the stanza simply revisits the previous recounted events and looks at those events as whole

events: Jonah recognizes that he called to the Lord, and that the Lord had heard his voice. This

is a clear example of segmented communication.

Another helpful example of the difference between continuation wayyiqtol and simple

qatal is provided by lines B and D, which are in parallel (as are lines A and C). Though the

qatal in 2.3e is in parallel with the wayyiqtol form in 2.3c, it does not indicate the same exact

information as the wayyiqtol. The wayyiqtol indicates the past action of the Lord, continuing

forward from the qatal form which preceded it. The qatal in 2.3e does not continue forward the

150 Niccacci even claims that “QATAL is always non-initial in [historical] narrative” (Syntax, §15).

Historical narratives are given by the narrator, while ‘oral narrative’ or ‘narrative discourse’ is undertaken from the point of view of a character in the story being narrated.

151 C.f. Chisholm, Workbook, 273. 152 Chisholm, Workbook, 57.

Page 62: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

51

background x-qatal which precedes it, but focuses the reader on the stative fact of God’s

previous action. In other words, the wayyiqtol looks at the action itself in connection with

Jonah’s cry, while the qatal looks the result or end of that action, without the logical connection

to Jonah’s cry. Thus, the qatal in line E fills in the missing (yet implied) information that the

Lord had heard Jonah’s call.153

This is significant for the meaning of the prayer in the context of the overall narrative in

the book. Syntactically and rhetorically the Lord raised Jonah “from the depths of Sheol” (2:3)

before the fish swallowed him.154 That is, as he is praying from the belly of the fish, he is

looking back to a time when he had already cried out to the lord from the depths of the ocean. It

is as Price and Nida have observed, “The tense of the verbs…[imply] that the prayer is uttered by

someone looking back in gratitude to a deliverance that has already taken place, not looking

forward to some future rescue.”155 As Jonah prays from the fish’s belly he has already been

rescued.

Adding to the segmented nature of poetic discourse, the rest of the psalm will be

repetitions of this first stanza, which will also be observed in the analysis of Habbakuk 3 below.

The second stanza (2:4-5) will give more details concerning the distress of Jonah, as well as how

he called out to the Lord. The third stanza (2:6-7) revisits Jonah’s distress (without mentioning

his cry), focusing more on the events of how the Lord answered him. The fourth stanza (2:8-10)

153 Some might contend that the Lord answering Jonah is the same event as the Lord hearing him, given the

parallelistic structure of the strophe (both phonetically and “sequentially”). But, iff so, why not use a continuation wayyiqtol in 2.3 instead of a qatal? If a wayyiqtol was used, then such a argument would be more valid. However, as noted in analysis, the poet had another intention than to make that contention, which is found by closely analyzing the verb forms. As it stands, the author did not choose a sequential sequence of verbs, and thus, did not intend us to view the second line sequentially.

154 This must be the case since Jonah is recalling how the Lord answered him (2.3), something which

happened prior (note the antecedent qatal forms) to him being in the fish’s belly praying to Yhwh. 155 Price and Nida, Translator’s Handbook, 36.

Page 63: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

52

recounts Jonah’s distress and deliverance, but focuses largely on the content of Jonah’s cry to

God.

Stanza 2, Strophe 1: Jonah’s Misfortune (2:4)

You cast me into the deep, A 2.4a מצולה ותשליכני

ים into the heart of the seas, B 2.4b בלבב ימ

While the current continually engulfed me, C 2.4c יסבבניונהר

יך וגליך all Your breakers and billows, D 2.4d כל־משבר

י רו׃על over me they had passed. E 2.4e עב

The second stanza opens up with a wayyiqtol form, ותשליכני. Following Niccacci, we would

expect a mainline qatal form here instead of the wayyiqtol. Interestingly, though, Niccacci

himself understands this as a “continuation” form of the wayyiqtol, as does Tucker.156 Even

though the event referenced by the wayyiqtol is chronologically previous to the preceding

mainline forms (qatal → wayyiqtol, 2.3bc), by appealing to segmented communication, rather

than sequential or linear communication, Niccacci is still able to see this as a continuation form

on the mainline of communication. It may perhaps be better to speak of these kind of wayyiqtol

forms as continuing the poetic thought forward, rather than the usual understanding, which sees

them as progressing the narrative through consecutive actions or states.

Line B (2.4b) is a prepositional phrase syntactically dependent on the previous clause by

ellipsis (“You cast me into the deep // [you cast me] into the heart of the seas”). Its purpose is to

provide more information to better complete the imagery which began in line A (2.4a). Line C

(2.4c) is a yiqtol form which lies in the axis of the past, and is thus a background form. Such

forms focus on the repetitive nature of the action (here, the continual action of the current). It is

156 Niccacci, Jonah, 29; Tucker, Handbook, 52.

Page 64: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

53

not a continuation form, but is circumstantial to the mainline of communication.157 As

background action, it is further describing Jonah’s train of thought behind line A (2.4c), where he

referenced the Lord casting him into the deep.

Line D (2.4d) is elliptically connected with line E (2.4e). The qatal in line E is in parallel

with the previous yiqtol, providing further background to the wayyiqtol in line A (2.4a). This x-

qatal clause seems to serve as the end of the first section of the poem. In contrast to the

repetitive nature of the action as meant by yiqtol, this construction looks at the result of the

casting (wayyiqtol) in line A (2.4a). Tucker explains that the x-qatal construction functions in

narrative discourse as a form of topicalization, which is a focus-shifting device used to give new

information.158 If such is the case, the emphasis would be placed on the fronted ‘x’ element, “all

Your breakers and billows.”

The final analysis of the syntactic structure of the verbs in this strophe is as follows. Line

A (2.4a) provides the mainline wayyiqtol form. It recounts how God had cast Jonah into the sea.

Line B (2.4b) is a prepositional phrase, elliptically dependent on line A, contributing figurative

imagery that helps better understand ‘the deep’ of line A. Line C (2.4c) is a background w-x-

yiqtol clause, emphasizing the continual action of the current engulfing Jonah. Lines D and E

(2.4de) are in parallel and are both functioning as background to the mainline wayyiqtol in line

A. The x-qatal clause in line E combines with the w-x-yiqtol clause in line C by looking at the

result of the casting from line A. The resulting picture is of Jonah, having been cast into the

seas, where the billows and breakers had passed over him and the current had continually

engulfed him.

157 Niccacci, Jonah, 30. Tucker also gives the following explanation (Handbook, 52-53): “The yiqtol form may be understood as having an ‘incipient past non-perfective’ aspect…in this form the speaker has in view the initial and continuing phases within the internal temporal structure of a past situation.”

158 Tucker, Handbook, 53 and 107.

Page 65: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

54

Stanza 2, Strophe 2: Prayer (2.5)

רתיואני So, I said (to myself), A 2.5a אמ

שתי  גד עיניך נגר I have been expelled from Your sight; B 2.5b' מנ

יט אוסיףאך Yet/Nevertheless, let me look again C 2.5c להב

ך׃ toward Your holy temple.' D 2.5d אל־היכל קדש

This second strophe in stanza two is Jonah’s response to his situation in strophe one. The fronted

pronoun אני helps signal this shift in focus.159 The w-x-qatal construction in line A (2.5a) could

be an indicator of background information following the wayyiqtol in 2.4a, but it could also be a

mainline x-qatal form.160 Considering its context as introducing the response of Jonah to his

situation, it is more likely to be a mainline form. This fits with Tucker’s analysis: “The verb

signals that within the embedded oral narrative discourse (vv3-4) another direct speech אמר

discourse will appear – a brief expository discourse in verse 5 appears embedded within the

larger oral narrative discourse (which is embedded within the larger expository discourse of the

entire poem).”161 Syntactically, line A is set apart from what follows, since it is introducing

them as direct discourse.

The qatal clause in line B (2.5b) summarizes the whole of Jonah’s journey, and functions

as a mainline form in the axis of the past. As a stative verb in qatal, it looks at the event of the

past as a whole (Jonah has been expelled from the Lord’s sight). Stanza three will revisit these

themes again, providing even more depth into Jonah’s plight.

159 Chisholm, Workbook, 59. 160 Niccacci, Verbal System in Poetry, 248. 161 Tucker, Handbook, 54. This is the deepest embedded structure of the poem.

Page 66: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

55

In line C (2.5c) there is an axis change from the past into the future. Prior to this point in

the poem, all the verbs were providing information on the past axis. As Jonah quotes himself,

though, there is for the first time an indication of the future. The אך serves as a marker of the

change in temporal axes. Though this point in the text has been a point of contention in textual

criticism, syntactically there is nothing wrong with the MT.162 Following Landes, “Given the

context of the poem, Jonah had no other recourse than to resolve to turn to Yahweh in prayer.”163

This also corresponds well with the volitive yiqtol which follows אך, which is a mainline form

of the future.164 The prepositional phrase in line D (2.5d) simply finishes the thought of line

C.165

The effect of this strophe is to show that even while Jonah is sinking beneath the waves

and the current (2.4), he is able to have confidence that he can look again towards the presence of

God. Such an understanding of this line seems to correspond well with the upcoming wayyiqtol

in 2.7c, where Jonah recounts that he continues to sink to the roots of the mountains, where God

then brought him up from the pit.

162 Hans Walter Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary (Minneapolist: Augsburg, 1986), 179. 163 As summarized in Tucker, Handbook, 54-55. Tucker also calls this a “focus particle”, which is meant to

place a limitation with respect to the content of a previous expression (55). 164 Niccacci, Verbal System in Poetry, 248. Of note is the JPS translation, which interprets Jonah’s resolve

as a question rather than a cohortative. Normally, this line is translated, “Yet I will look again…” (ESV, HCSB, NAS, NIV, etc) or “Will I look again…?” (JPS), both interpreting the verb form as in the indicative future axis. None translate as a cohortative, in the volitive future, as is suggestive by Niccacci’s theory, which understands all first-place yiqtol as volitives.

165 Considering the Hebrew poetry is known for its terseness, there are three אל prepositions in the poem

(2.3, 2.6, 2.8) that may be linked together exegetically: in 2.3 Jonah is calling out to the Lord; in 2.6 he is looking toward the holy temple; and in 2.8 prayer is coming toward the holy temple. All of these imply the presence of the Lord.

Page 67: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

56

Stanza 3, Strophes 1 and 2: Jonah’s Misfortune (2.6-7)166

פש אפפוני Water encompassed me, up to the neck; A 2.6a מים עד־נ

while the great deep continually surrounded יסבבניתהום me, B 2.6b

י׃ חבושוף ס weeds were wrapped around my head. C 2.6c לראש

דתי לקצבי הרים To the roots of the mountains I descended, D 2.7a יר

י לעולם הארץ יה בעד ברח As for the earth - its bars were around me forever; E 2.7b

Then you brought up my life from the pit, F 2.7c משחת חיי ותעל

י׃ O YHWH my God. G 2.7d יהוה אלה

As in the previous strophes, this one begins with an initial qatal form, אפפוני, on the mainline of

the axis of the past. As Tucker explains, “Following the direct speech in verse 5, the psalm

returns to embedded oral narrative discourse.”167 Line B (2.6b) is an x-yiqtol construction, and

offers the first opportunity to comment on qatal-yiqtol in parallelism, which has been frequently

observed by scholars.168

Niccacci begins his discussion of alternating qatal/yiqtol by stating,

Most scholars fairly disregard the verbal forms appearing in the texts and translate according to their own understanding, while some assume archaic peculiarities in the use of verbal forms, especially an alternating occurrence, or variation, of qatal and yiqtol for the same event or information.169

This use of qatal and yiqtol seems to be at work in lines A and B, where water encompasses

Jonah (initial qatal) and the deep surrounds him (x-yiqtol), respectively. And, as Niccacci

166 Though there are two strophes in this stanza (lines A-C, lines D-G), they will be dealt with together to better show why the MT text can be supported by Niccacci’s theory. Thus, there is no need to layout the text as the BHS editors have done.

167 Tucker, Handbook, 55. 168 See M. Held, “The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and in

Ugaritic,” Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 281-290; M. Dahood, Psalms III (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 420-423; and D. Clines, I, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53, JSOTSS 1 (Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1976), 47-48.

169 Niccacci, Verbal System in Poetry, 249.

Page 68: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

57

indicated, most major translations smooth over the verbal forms, translating both as simple pasts

(e.g., the ESV, “The waters closed in over me…the deep surrounded me”).

Niccacci goes on to say, “Now, in BH x-yiqtol and weqatal occur along with qatal and

wayyiqtol in prose texts referring to the past not only in historical narrative but also in direct

speech.”170 Thus, it is not surprising to find an initial qatal followed by an x-yiqtol.

Additionally, he notes, “When both qatal and yiqtol refer to the axis of the past, they signal a

shift from main-line, punctual information (qatal) to secondary-line,

repeated/habitual/explicatory/descriptive information (yiqtol).”171

In the analysis, line A (initial qatal) conveys a single/punctual piece of historical

information while line B (x-yiqtol) expounds the ensuing continuous situation.172 That is, the

first narrates (foreground), and the second describes (background). An attempt to capture this

relationship is reflected in the translation from the table above, “Water encompassed me up to

the neck // while the great deep continually surrounded me.”

Following the division of the text by the traditional text, the above layout and translation

accords with poetic syntax.173 In this layout, the simple nominal clause (2.6c) provides

background information to line B (2.6b). Tucker’s comments are in agreement with Niccacci’s

theory, “Within embedded oral narrative discourse, the participles provide background

170 Niccacci, Verbal System in Poetry, 250. 171 Niccacci, Verbal System in Poetry, 253. 172 See Niccacci, Verbal System in Poetry, 257-258, where he similarly analyzes a wayyiqtol → x-yiqtol

construction, in Psalm 78:44. 173 Noteworthy, even the text as it stands in BHS still follows Niccacci’s theory, where the initial qatal in

line D is a mainline form continued by the wayyiqtol in line F. Lines E and G would be simple nominal clauses functioning on the level of background.

Page 69: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

58

information. Thus the clause does not move the narrative forward, it simply enhances the image

being presented through providing additional information.”174

The x-qatal of ירד (line D, 2.7a) is a mainline form in poetic oral narrative, and begins

this strophe as the others before it. It is followed by a simple nominal clause (2.7b), which

functions as background, and then a wayyiqtol (2.7c), which is a mainline continuation form of

qatal in oral narrative.175 There is, then, a perceived sequence of events in vv6-7. This general

chronology, though somewhat rare, is also well-attested in other poetic texts (e.g., Psalm 78). As

mentioned previously, it revisits Jonah’s distress and how the Lord intervened to bring his life up

from the pit. The Lord’s intervention in Jonah’s situation is certainly related to how the Lord

answered Jonah (2:3). As the poem progresses, the reader is given a clearer and clearer picture

of Jonah’s plight.

The poem has moved along several directions, all guided by syntax and parallelism. The

main storyline was set up in 2:3, where the reader is informed that Jonah called out to God and

that his call was answered. The second stanza recounts how Jonah was expelled from the Lord’s

sight (2:4) and how Jonah prayed to the Lord (2:5) while sinking beneath the current and the

waves. The storyline continues in (2:6-7) by recounting how Jonah continued to go down to the

foundations of the earth, but was rescued out of death through divine intervention. Other verb

forms have helped to provide background information that has further filled out the main line,

offering relief and textual depth.

174 Tucker, Handbook, 56. 175 Niccacci, Verbal System in Poetry, 248.

Page 70: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

59

Stanza 4, Strophe 1: Prayer (2.8)

י בהתעטף When my life was fainting within me A 2.8a“ עלי נפש

YHWH I remembered; B 2.8b זכרתי את־יהוה

י ותבוא Then my prayer came to You, C 2.8c אליך תפלת

ך׃ into Your holy temple. D 2.8d אל־היכל קדש

One might expect that the temporal clause in 2.8a is a background clause, forming a pause in the

poem. In actuality, Niccacci would describe this as the protasis of a two-element syntactic

construction, in which 2.8b forms the apodosis.176 This would put the whole of the construction

(2.8a-b) on the mainline of the past.177

The two-element syntactic construction is followed by a continuation wayyiqtol in line C

(2.8c) and a background, prepositional phrase in line D (2.8d). These forms are fairly

straightforward and do not require much explanation. Of note, however is the ‘holy temple’ of

the Lord. In 2:5 Jonah expressed his desire to look again toward the temple of the Lord, and

here, that temple is identified as the place where God dwells.

Stanza 4, Strophe 2: Prayer (2.9-10)

ים Those who honor the vanities of emptiness, A 2.9a‘ הבלי־שוא משמר

ם בו׃חסד They will forsake their faithfulness/mercy. B 2.9b יעז

י ךאזבחה בקול תודה ואנ So I, with a voice of thanksgiving, will ־לsacrifice to you, C 2.10a

רתיאשר that which I have vowed I will pay.’ D 2.10b אשלמה נד

Salvation is from YHWH.” E 2.10c ס ישועתה ליהוה׃

176 Niccacci’s explanation of this construction begins in §95 of his Syntax. For the temporal clause of

preposition + infinitive, see §106. 177 Niccacci, Syntax, §126.

Page 71: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

60

This is the first strophe is the poem that does not begin in the axis of the past. Instead, the poet

uses a non-verbal sentence with a participle, which is on the main level of communication

(foreground) in the future indicative axis.178 Line B continues in the axis of the future with an

indicative x-yiqtol construction functioning as “the apodosis of a double sentence.”179 The

protasis is the casus pendens in 2.9a. Chisholm notes, “Jonah seems to be generalizing here, so

the imperfect has a characteristic or habitual present function.”180 The effect is to isolate this

couplet in contrast to what follows.

What follows are two jussive yiqtol forms (called “cohortative” in the first person).181

The first (2.10a) is doubly fronted. Tucker notes that this marks “not only the exclusive role of a

particular discourse activity entity, but also…a particular quality of the discourse active event as

well.”182 Here, this means that Jonah, in the first person, is brought to the forefront, as well as

his voice of thanksgiving. The second jussive yiqtol (2.10b) is also fronted, helping to

emphasize the relative clause, which is the ‘x’ element. The emphasis of this verse falls on

Jonah’s voice of thanksgiving and that which he vowed to God. Now, after his deliverance,

Jonah wishes to respond to God as the Gentile sailors had earlier. Jonah is resolved to worship

God at the end of this poem.183

178 Niccacci, Verbal System in Poetry, 248. 179 Niccacci, Jonah, 30. 180 Chisholm, Workbook, 275. 181 Niccacci, Jonah, 30. 182 Tucker, Handbook, 61. 183 Chisholm notes that these cohortatives express Jonah’s resolve or intention (Workbook, 275). This

corresponds with Jonah’s change of heart in the next scene, beginning in 3:1.

Page 72: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

61

The only statement in the axis of the present is line E (2.10c). Niccacci calls this “a short

proclamation of faith.”184 In many ways, this is the most important line of the poem. Tucker

comments, “The final clause in the poem is actually the only clause in which there is a mainline

verbal form for expository discourse – a verbless clause. The previous clauses have all been off-

the-line forms that have provided background information to the central claim of the poem. In

essence, the entire poem has been constructed as an argument which culminates with the primary

thesis…being presented in [2.10c].”185 One can learn from Jonah’s distress, cry, and deliverance

that salvation originates with God, and no other.186

Terminating the Scene (2:11)

אמר ג וי Then the LORD spoke to the fish, 2.11a יהוה לד

א ה׃ פ ויק then it vomited Jonah onto the dry land. 2.11b את־יונה אל־היבש

Just as the analysis began with the narrative introduction to the poem, so here it ends with the

narrative conclusion to the scene (the terminus). The wayyiqtol picks up the narrative from the

mainline form in 2.3a, and continues in the axis of the past with another continuation wayyiqtol

(2.11b).

Final Analysis of the Poem

Following the poetic syntax of Niccacci, the poem in Jonah 2 was a fairly straightforward text to

interpret. Throughout the analysis yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and qatal forms were encountered, and

there was no difficulty following the mind of the writer, even within segmented communication.

184 Niccacci, Jonah, 30. There is also a lexical resumption between (2:3) שועתי and (2:10) ישועתה which

helps to establish this point. 185 Tucker, Handbook, 61-62. 186 Chisholm, Workbook, 66.

Page 73: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

62

In fact, the segmented communication allowed the writer to better reflect and meditate on

previous actions.

Though this way of communicating slows down the reader from the narrative pace he or

she is used to, it also helps to heighten and bring out certain elements that are important to the

writer that a reader might miss from simple narrative. In the end, Niccacci’s theory for poetic

syntax not only proved plausible, but also proved helpful.

Psalm 1

This psalm was chosen because it has many different constructions than Jonah 2. Unlike Jonah,

which is largely an oral narrative, Psalm 1 switches between all three temporal axes regularly,

displaying a rich array of verbal forms. There are patterns, however, to how the verb forms are

used. For instance, the three x-qatal clauses found in 1:1 are mirrored by three x-yiqtol clauses

in 1:3. The former use negatives to positively describe “the man,” while the latter seem to give a

description of that man’s blessing as a result of his delight in the Torah oh Yhwh (1:2).

The psalm is structured as a chiasm: the first stanza (A, 1:1) contrasts the blessed man

with wicked men, the second (B, 1:2-3) gives an image of the blessed man as a tree, the third

(B’, 1:4) gives an image of the wicked as chaff, and the fourth (A’, 1:5-6) contrasts the wicked

with the righteous ones. In Jonah, such a structure was not present. There, the first stanza served

as a template upon which following stanzas revisiting and gave further commentary. Here,

repetition will exist primarily in the contrast between the blessed man and the wicked, which the

chiastic structure of the psalm supports.

Page 74: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

63

Stanza 1 (1:1): The Blessed Man vs. the Wicked

יש רי־הא ש O the blessings of the man187 1.1a א

א אשר׀ עים בעצת הלך ל Who never walked in the counsel of the רשwicked 1.1b

א חטאים ובדרך Nor in the way of sinners ever stood 1.1c עמד ל

ב ים ובמוש צ א ל ב׃ ל Nor in the seat of scoffers ever sat. 1.1d יש

The first stanza of the psalm begins with a nominal phrase. Niccacci does not have a category

for this kind of statement, but it seems to function as a simple nominal clause in the foreground

of the present axis.188 It is not parallel to anything which follows it, which may indicate that this

opening clause as casus pendens. Particularly, it may be an anacrusis (that is, an introductory

formula or title before the first line of the psalm). In this case, it could be the title for the Psalter,

or simply be the title for the opening two psalms.189 It may help to think of the poet speaking

directly to the reader at this point, “O the blessings of the man!” Whoever this man is, the

emphasis is being placed on his blessings.

The next three clauses are all of the same type: negative (w-)x-qatal. All three function

as retrospective circumstantial clauses, each building from the initial relative, and each

completing the nominal phrase in 1.1a.190 This places each of them in the background of the past

axis, each indicating lifelong conduct. Functionally, these clauses describe the character of the

blessed man. The initial relative (אשר) shares a strong phonetic link to the blessings (אשרי) of

187 For a thorough explanation of why this is not simply any man, but “the man,” see Robert L. Cole,

“(Mis)Translating Psalm 1,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 10/2 (Fall 2005), 35-50.

188 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 248.

189 The lack of a superscription in both psalms, as well as numerous points of contact between them, most notably the inclusio of אשרי in 1:1 and 2:12, add to the support of reading these two psalms together as a unit.

190 Niccacci, Syntax, §92.

Page 75: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

64

the man in 1.1a, bringing together a closer relationship between present blessings and the man’s

proven conduct.

The syntactic analysis of this stanza reveals that the present state of the “blessings of the

man” (1:1) are dependent on his proven conduct. The negative clauses, which reveal the

previous conduct of the man, will also be used to contrast the wicked with his future actions

(1:2), which are brought to completion in 1:3.

Stanza 2 (1:2-3): The Blessed Man as a Tree

ת אם כי ה בתור פצו יהו Rather, the Torah of Yhwh is his delight 1.2a ח

ה ובתורתו ם יהג ילה׃ יומ and on his Torah he will continue to meditate ולday and night 1.2b

ה הי י שתול כעץ ו ל־פלג ים ע And he will be like a tree transplanted by מstreams of water 1.3a

ן פריו׀ אשר Which will give its fruit in its season, 1.3b בעתו ית

א־ ועלהו And whose leaf will not whither; 1.3c יבולל

ל יח׃ יעשהאשר־ וכ And whatever he shall do, he shall succeed 1.3d יצל

The next stanza begins with a םא כי conjunction followed by a simple nominal clause. It is on

the foreground of the present axis, and, like 1.1a, indicates basic information about “the man.”

The םא כי conjunction expresses a strong contrast from what has preceded. 191 Van der Merwe

even notes that with this particular conjunction “the speakers make it very clear that not only is

an alternative involved, but that it is the only possible alternative.”192 This suggests that there are

only two paths that one can take, the way of blessing and righteousness, or the way of

wickedness. In this respect, the clause previews the final point made by the poet in 1:6.

191 Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, Third Edition, Revised and Expanded by John. C.

Beckman (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), §447, 449, 555. 192 Van der Merwe, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 303.

Page 76: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

65

The next clause (1.2b) is an x-yiqtol clause, and it is a foreground form in the future

indicative axis. Within Niccacci’s verbal theory, this clause can be interpreted in one of two

ways . First, it can serve as another example of a two-element syntactic construction. Here, the

םא כי + SNC + (x)-yiqtol makes up the protasis, while the weqatal in 1.3a makes up the

apodosis.193 In this scenario, the future axis of weqatal in 1:3a must be carried back into 1.2b,

making the x-yiqtol clause a future indicative.

A second option, which is more likely, is that the x-yiqtol clause, though being in the

future indicative axis, is being used as an “habitual present.” In this scenario, the present delight

in the Torah (1.2a) will yield a future, continuing habit of meditating on the Torah night and day

(1.2b), hence the translation above. The benefit of this interpretation is that the weqatal in 1.3a

can remain a continuation form.194

Rhetorical analysis also helps to support this syntactic analysis, especially the parallelistic

relationship between 1:4 and the 1:1-3. First, 1:4 begins with a nominal phrase in the present

axis, corresponding to the same construction in 1.1a. Second, the לא particle in 1.4a is

reminiscent of 1.1b-d, where one finds three negative x-qatal clauses. Third, the םא כי + simple

nominal clause in 1.4b corresponds to the same construction in 1.2a. In both clauses, the present

is indicated. Fourth, the x-yiqtol clause in 1.4c is parallel to the w-x-yiqtol → weqatal

construction in 1.2b-1.3a. This last correspondence signifies that the two constructions are

synonymous, both indicating the indicative future (the “habitual present” use).

193 Niccacci, Syntax, §108. See also the analysis of Jonah 2:8 above. 194 Niccacci, Syhtax, §57. In other words, it functions to continue the x-yiqtol from 1.2b.

Page 77: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

66

The next clause (1.3a) begins with a weqatal on the foreground of the indicative future.

It functions as the continuation of the foreground from the x-yiqtol in 1.2b.195 If the והיה were

the macro-syntactic sign of the future, then the verb form would enjoy a greater independence

from what preceded it.196 This, however, is simply not the case. The verb plays an important

role in the clause itself, not in the discourse as a whole. This means it is not the macro-syntactic

sign, but a continuation weqatal.197

The x-yiqtol clauses (1.3b-c) describe the nature of this transplanted tree, and are both

guided by the אשר in 1.3b, making them background forms. A third x-yiqtol clause appears in

1.3d, but this clause is on the foreground. It takes the image of the tree given in 1.3a-c and

further explains that the man from 1.1a will prosper in all of his undertakings.

Interestingly, the clause in 1.3a introduces the metaphor of the man being like a tree into

the psalm. Without this image, there would be an immediate connection between 1.2b and 1.3d,

two clauses finding very close parallels with Joshua 1. This connection is broken by the garden

imagery (1.3a-c), which is placed right in the middle of it. This brings together two important

themes for the rest of the Psalter: a return to the Garden, and the prospering of the king in

relation to his meditation on the Torah. It also associates the man in this psalm with a king. This

psalm provides no guide to interpret the significance of the image, but semantic links and

195 Niccacci, Syntax, §57. 196 Niccacci, Syntax, §156. 197 In other words, when the verb functions as a discourse marker (macro-syntactic sign), it should not play

a significant role in the clause which it precedes. Thus, it could be removed altogether and not affect the meaning of the clause. When it is the finite verb of the clause, it cannot be the macro-syntactic sign. A clear example of these two functions is in Micah 5:6, 9. In 5:6, the verb functions as the continuation weqatal, continuing forward the events from the previous verse. In 5:9, however, it functions as the macro-syntactic sign, and could be removed from the clause without any grammatical damage.

Page 78: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

67

parallels with Psalm 2 may provide the key, also making the connection between this man and a

future king.

Syntactically, this stanza functions to complete the picture painted in the first one. While

the first stanza used the past axis to describe the lasting conduct of the blessed man, this stanza

uses the future axis to further explain the substance of those blessings received by him.

Stanza 3 (1:4): The Wicked as Chaff

Not so the wicked; 1.4a הרשעים לא־כן

י ץ כ מ Instead, they are like chaff, 1.4b אם־כ

נואשר־ which the wind will continue to drive away. 1.4c רוח׃ תדפ

This next stanza is quite short (one tri-colon), but offers some interesting syntax. The nominal

phrase in 1.4a is exactly like the simple nominal clause which opens up the psalm (1.1a). In

fact, according to the chiastic structure of the psalm, this stanza provides the contrasting image to

the blessed man. As noted earlier, the comparative syntax between 1:1-3 and 1:4 helps to

strengthen such correspondence. Like 1.1a, then, it is a basic sentence in the present tense.

The םא כי conjunction also has an adversative function in this verse, much like its

counterpart in 1.2a. Here, as in 1.2a, the simple nominal clause continues in the present axis. In

1:2, the contrast was between the past action of the wicked and the present delight of the man.

Here, the contrast is between the future blessings of the man and the future fate of the wicked.

tense in 1.4a to the future tense in 1.4b. This final clause in the tri-colon is an x-yiqtol, which

indicates the foreground of future indicative. It further completes the contrast between the fate

of the man and the fate of the wicked.

Page 79: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

68

The net effect thus far of the verb forms on the interpretation of the poem is as follows.

The two main characters of the poem, the blessed man and the wicked (pl.), are introduced in the

axis of the present. The former is introduced positively, in correlation to the blessing he receives

in 1.3 as a result of his past and future actions (1.1b-1.2b), while the latter is introduced in utter

contrast to such blessing (1:4). In this respect, the לא of 1.4 is reminiscent of the three לא

clauses of 1:1. In 1.4a and 1:1 the past actions of both parties are in focus, one resulting in the

continual, delightful meditation on the Torah (1.2) and the future resurrected life in the garden

(1.3), and the other resulting in an unsteady and constantly shifting future (1.4b-c).

Stanza 4 (1:5-6): The Wicked versus the Righteous

שעים יקמולא־ על־כן׀ Therefore, the wicked will not arise in the במשפט רjudgment 1.5a

ים חטא ת ו ים׃ בעד Nor the sinners in the congregation of the צדיקrighteous (pl.) 1.5b

י־ ים דרך יהוה יודע כ For Yhwh knows the way of the righteous 1.6a צדיק

רך ד׃ רשעים וד But the way of the wicked will perish. 1.6b תאב

Prior to this stanza, segmented communication was seen in the parallel structures which

contrasted the blessed man with the wicked. Starting here, though, the parallel structure moves

to the couplet. For the first time in the poem the righteous (pl.) are mentioned in comparison

with the wicked. The relationship between the righteous and the blessed man will not be made

clear until the final clause in the next psalm (2:12).

The first verb form in this stanza is lo-yiqtol (1.5a). The על־כן functions as a casus

pendens, being set apart from the rest of the clause. Van der Merwe notes that it serves to

introduce a fact after a statement of grounds.198 Thus, 1:5 provides the main lesson for what has

198 Van der Merwe, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, §40.15.

Page 80: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

69

been discussed in 1:1-4; namely, that neither the wicked will not arise (resurrect) in the

judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous (pl.). This seems to contrast the fate

of the blessed man in 1.4, who will be like a tree planted by streams of water.

Another poetic device to notice in 1.5a-b is ellipsis (verb gapping). This tightens the

correspondence between the two lines, as does phonological parallelism, which creates two

bonds. The first is between the resurrection (arising) in 1.5a and the righteous in 1.5b, and the

second between ‘the wicked in the judgment’ (1.5a) and ‘the sinners in the congregation’ (1.5b).

Could the tie between the resurrection and the righteous in 1:5 imply that the man in 1:4 is

enjoying the blessing of having risen in the judgment?

The final bi-colon of the psalm has a non-verbal sentence in parallel with w-x-yiqtol.

The first line (1.6a) is a basic sentence in the present tense. The כי conjunction marks “the

motivation given by speakers to explain something they have said.”199 In this case, it marks the

motive of the speaker for the whole preceding argument (1:1-5). In other words, the psalmist is

providing evidence for the assertions he has made thus far in verses one to five. This seems to

imply that knowing the way of the righteous means more than just mental awareness. More

likely, it refers to the preservation and protection of the righteous – how the Lord is watching

over them and keeping them. The way, then, is a metaphor for a way of life, conduct, or

behavior. Significantly, this kind of protection extends far into the future, beyond the grave and

into the resurrection.

The final clause in Psalm 1 is a w-x-yiqtol. It functions as a mainline verb form in the

indicative future, switching from the present in the previous line. In a rather segmented way, it is

reminiscent of the announcement made in 1:4. This final bi-colon serves as the motive for the

199 Van der Merwe, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, §40.9 (pg. 302).

Page 81: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

70

whole psalm. This same phenomenon was found in the final clause in Jonah as well. There,

Jonah announced that salvation originated in Yhwh, and in no other. Here, the psalmist is giving

his readers this information so that they might understand that Yhwh knows the righteous and

protects them, while the wicked he will destroy, as wind blows the chaff.

Final Analysis of the Poem

As in Jonah 2, the verb forms in Psalm 1 were analyzed and were found to make good sense of

the discourse. The verb forms represented in this text were far different than those represented in

Jonah, but in both cases they fit well into Niccacci’s verb theory of direct speech prose.

In this text, the axis of the present was indicated by simple nominal clauses in 1.1a, 1.2a,

1.4a, and 1.6a. These are significant because they bring to light the contrast between the fate of

the blessed man and that of the wicked, in correlation with the chiastic structure of the psalm as a

whole. The axis of the past was only used in 1.b-d to indicate the past actions of the blessed

man. This information also gives the reader a way to understand the wicked in 1.4a. The axis of

the future was used in every other clause, principally to indicate the fates of the blessed man and

the righteous, as contrasted to the fate of the wicked.

In a final word, syntactical analysis seemed to go hand-in-hand with rhetorical analysis.

This was predominately seen in how the chiastic structure lent support to help interpret key

clauses in the psalm (e.g., 1:4 in relationship with 1:1-3).

Psalm 2

The final analysis of this paper will be applied to Psalm 2. This psalm was chosen

because of its connection with Psalm 1.200 Both lack a superscription, adding to their unity as an

200 For a more complete look at the links between Psalms 1 and 2, see Robert L. Cole, “An Integrated

Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,” JSOT 98 (2002), 75-88.

Page 82: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

71

introduction to the Psalter as a whole. Another element of unity across these psalms is blessing,

which is used in description of the blessed man (1:1) and of the blessing which come to those

who take refuge (trust) in that man (2:12). Reading the two psalms together as a unit, one can

identify the blessed man (1:1) as the Son/Messiah from 2:3, 7, the wicked (1:4) with the

rebellious nations, peoples, and rulers (2:1-2), and the righteous ones (1:5-6) with those receiving

the blessing (2:12) given to the man (1:1).

The structure of Psalm 2 is chiastic, just as in Psalm 1: stanza one (A, 2:1-3) is linked

with stanza four (A’, 2:10-12), and stanza two (B, 2:4-6) with stanza three (B’, 2:7-9). The

effect is that the rebellious kings (stanza one) are told how to respond properly in stanza four,

while the Lord establishing his king on Zion (stanza two) by means of a decree (stanza three).

Stanza 1 (2.1-3): Rebellion against Yhwh and his Messiah

Strophe 1 (2:1-2)

Why did the nations conspire, 2.1a גוים רגשו למה

ים יק׃יהגו ולאמ While the peoples were meditating in vain? 2.1b ־ר

רץ ׀יתיצבו Why> were the kings of the earth/land> מלכי־אalways taking their stand 2.2a

While the rulers conspired together 2.2b ־יחדנוסדו ורוזנים

הוה against Yhwh and against his Anointed? 2.2c ועל־משיחו׃ על־י

Strophe 2 (2:3)

נתקה Let us tear off from us their binding things, 2.3a“ את־מוסרותימו נ

ימו׃ ממנו ונשליכה And let us cast off from us their chords 2.3b עבת

Strophe one (2:1-2) in this stanza is set in the axis of the past by its mainline forms (2.1a, 2.2a).

This puts verses one and two in parallel, offering a chiastic structure to the verb forms: qatal-

yiqtol // yiqtol-qatal. Such a structure gives the opportunity to discuss two important aspects of

Page 83: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

72

Biblical Hebrew poetry: the <x-> yiqtol construction as a double-duty modifier, and the

alternation of qatal and yiqtol.

According to Niccacci, a sentence-initial yiqtol (which appears in 2.2a) is jussive.201 The

problem is that the yiqtol in 2.2a seems to be referring to the axis of the past, where the

expression of volition is unlikely. A helpful poetic device in this situation is ellipsis, where a

given element that is grammatically expected is omitted. Niccacci notes that this phenomenon

occurs frequently in poetry, especially in the form of a “double-duty” modifier. These function

to designate “a grammatical element that serves two or more lines although it does not appear in

every case but only in the first line or, more difficult to recognize, only in the subsequent

parallel lines of a poetic unit.”202

In the present case, the למה of 2.1a is such a modifier, providing double-duty for both

verses (2:1-2). It modifies the foreground clauses in 2.1a and 2.2a, while the x-yiqtol in 1.1b and

the x-qatal in 1.2b are circumstantial constructions in the background of the past axis. This sets

up the qatal-yiqtol // yiqtol-qatal structure, which allows the <x->yiqtol in 2.2a to have a past

temporal reference.

Alternating qatal-yiqtol, as noted above in the Jonah analysis, have given interpreters

trouble throughout the past few centuries. Allowing the verb forms to speak for themselves,

however, Niccacci is able to give a sufficient explanation of the phenomenon. He states, “Clear

cases of x-yiqtol constructions are attested indicating repetition/habit/explication/description in

201 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 251. 202 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 258.

Page 84: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

73

the axis of the past, in parallelism with wayyiqtol and qatal forms.”203 Here, the x-yiqtol is in

parallelism with a qatal form.

In connection with this statement, Niccacci commented on this verse in particular, that

“the yiqtol constructions convey repetition/habit/explication/description and do not stand on the

same level with the qatal constructions, which convey single information.”204 Such an

arrangement of forms adds depth to the field of the presentation of the event.205 The qatal in

2.1a, then, would indicate narrative-punctual event of the conspiring nations, while the yiqtol in

2.2a would indicate the habitual-descriptive information about the kings and rulers of the

earth.206 Niccacci calls this function of qatal-yiqtol “merismus.”207 For him, it is a way of

expressing totality in abbreviated form. In the present verse, “the coordinates punctuality vs.

habit/description add depth perspective and contribute to a graphic representation of the events

that is characteristic of poetry.”208

The second strophe in this stanza is a bi-colon. It presents the rebellious cry of those

against Yhwh and his Messiah in 2:1-2. The change in speaker also correlates with a change in

temporal axis. Here, the strophe is in the axis of the volitive future. Both lines (2.3a-b) are

jussive yiqtol in the foreground of the volitive future. They follow the verb chart perfectly.

203 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 261. 204 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 259.

205 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 259. 206 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 266. 207 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 266. 208 Niccacci, “Verbal System in Poetry,” 266.

Page 85: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

74

Stanza 2 (2:4-6): The Lord is establishing his king on Zion

Strophe 1 (2:4-5)

The one who sits in the heavens will laugh, 2.4a ישחק בשמים יושב

י דנ מו׃ילעג א The Lord will hold them in derision; 2.4b ־ל

Then he will speak to them in his anger, 2.5a באפו אלימו ידבר אז

מו׃ ובחרונו While in his fury he will terrify them. 2.5b יבהל

Strophe 2 (2:6)

But I myself have established my king 2.6a“ מלכי נסכתי ואני

יון י׃ על־צ Upon Zion, my holy mountain.” 2.6b הר־קדש

As in the first stanza, the strophes function to paint a setting (2:4-5) and then give a character in

the story an opportunity to speak (2:6). In the first stanza, the psalmist inquired into why many

were in rebellion to Yhwh and his Messiah (strophe one), and then gave those rebelling a voice

in strophe two. Here, the psalmist paints a picture in strophe one of the Lord responding to the

cry of the rebellious. Strophe two offers the spoken response of the Lord.

All four clauses in this strophe one are x-yiqtol forms. The temporal marker אז separates

the first two lines from the second two. This allows the first two x-yiqtol forms to remain in the

foreground, parallel to one another, while the second two form a unit. The x-yiqtol in 2.5a is in

the foreground of the indicative future, as 2.4a-b, while the w-x-yiqtol has a background function,

as it indicates descriptive, contemporaneous information.

Strophe two is also fairly easy to analyze. In it there is another change of speaker, from

the voice of the psalmist to the voice of the Lord, who sits in the heavens. In his discourse, he

speaks in the foreground of the past axis, using a w-x-qatal clause. Though it is made up of two

poetic lines, syntactically it is only one clause. As lines, this indicates syntagmatic parallelism,

which was last seen in 2.2c.

Page 86: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

75

Several elements of this stanza help to make interpretative connections between it and the

rest of the poem. For instance, the אל preposition is only used twice in the poem (2:5, 2:7). In

both instances it is used identify who the Lord is speaking to. The preposition על is used in a

similar fashion. In verse 2, it used to describe who the wicked are rebelling against, and in verse

7 it is used to describe where the Lord has established his king. The effect of such usage is an

element of irony. Lastly, the pronoun אני is used in 2:6 and 2:7 in reference to the same speaker.

Stanza 3 (2:7-9): The Lord’s decree concerning his Son

Strophe 1 (2:7)

ה ל אספר ק א ה ח הו Let me recount concerning the decree of יYhwh; 2.7a

ר י אמ He said to me, 2.7b אל

You are my Son, 2.7c“ אתה בני

י נ יך׃ היום א I, this day, have begotten you. 2.7d ילדת

Strophe 2 (2:8)

ני שאל Ask of me, 2.8a ממ

In order that I might give the nations as your נחלתך גוים ואתנהinheritance 2.8b

אחזתך רץ׃ ו And as your possession, the ends of the אפסי־אearth. 2.8c

Shepherd/break them with a rod of iron, 2.9a ברזל בשבט תרעם

י ם׃ יוצר ככל As an instrument of a potter shatter them!” 2.9b תנפצ

The first strophe in this stanza enters begins with a different speaker. In the previous verse, the

speaker was the Lord (2:6), and here it is the Son (2.7c). The focus of his discourse is on the

decree which Yhwh spoke to him. In 2:7 the verb forms indicate the past temporal axis, while

2:8-9 indicate the future volitive axis.

The first clause in 2:7 (2.7a) is an initial yiqtol, which is jussive. It is on the foreground

of the future volitive axis. This clause is followed by a qatal form (2.7b), which is the

Page 87: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

76

foreground form in the axis of the past. It also sets up the quoted speech section, which runs

from 2.7c through the end of the stanza (2.9b). The quote begins with a simple nominal clause in

the present temporal axis. This is the first time the present axis has been utilized in this poem. It

functions as a basic statement of information, much like the clauses in 1.1a and 1.4a. The x-

qatal in the following clause (2.7d) switches the discourse from the axis of the present to the axis

of the past. It is a foreground verb form. As an x-qatal, it has the effect of placing emphasis on

the ‘x’ element, which, in this case, is the identification of the speaker: Yhwh (c.f. 2:6).

This strophe makes the first explicit reference to the Davidic covenant in the Psalter. The

heart of the speech is the close relationship between the Father and his Son. One also be able to

make a case that 2:7 is interpreting 2:6; that is, the Lord established his king upon Zion by

issuing the decree the Son (king) is now recounting.

As a note of interest, the BHS editors laid out this strophe in an undiscernable pattern.

Syntactically, it is clearly four separate clauses that are easily analyzed, but as poetry, it is

difficult to ascertain whether it should be understood as a mono-colon followed by a bi-colon (or

even two bi-colon) or as a tri-colon. In any case, syntax is not dependent on strophic analysis.

The second strophe (2:8-9) begins with an imperative, which belongs to the mainline of

the future. This sets the entire strophe in the volitive future. According to Niccacci, the

following cohortative weyiqtol form continues the mainline of the future from an imperative,

indicating purpose. The translation above reflects this function of the verb.

The nominal phrase in 2.8c is also on the mainline of the future. The weyiqtol in the

previous clause also belongs in this clause, creating ellipsis between the two lines. The volitive

in 2.9a switches from the first-person to the second-person, making it an imperative. From here,

Page 88: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

77

another imperative is used in 2.9b, but in the background (x-imperative). Thus, in 2:9 there is a

parallelism of the type AB//BA.

Stanza 4 (2:10-12): A King’s Proper Response to Yhwh

Unit 1 (2:10)

And now, O kings, be prudent 2.10a השכילו מלכים ועתה

וסרו פטי ה רץ׃ ש Be disciplined, O judging ones of the earth. 2.10b א

Unit 2 (2:11)

Serve Yhwh in fear, 2.11a ביראה את־יהוה עבדו

ילו ג ה׃ ו and rejoice in trembling; 2.11b ברעד

Unit 3 (2:12a-d)

רנשקו Kiss the Son. 2.12a ־ב

 ףפן־ Lest he become angry 2.12b ׀יאנ

אבדו רך ות so that you be destroyed in (your) way 2.12c ד

י־ For he will burn with his anger quickly 2.12d אפו כמעט יבערכ

Unit 4 (2:12e)

י שר Blessed are all those who trust in him. 2.12e בו׃ חוסיכל־ א

The final stanza in this psalm has been divided into four units, rather than strophes. The strophic

division of these three verses is difficult to ascertain, and may provide difficulty to a proper

syntactic analysis. Instead, analysis will be done to complete units.

In this stanza the speaker is again the psalmist, who is now reflecting on all that has been

previously recounted. As Niccacci notes, הת ע is “an important particle which introduces the

result arising or the conclusion to be drawn concerning the present action from an event or topic

dealt with beforehand. Its force, therefore, is as an adverbial expression of time with logical

force: ‘And now, and so.’”209 This stanza, then, is the conclusion to the poem.

209 Niccacci, Syntax, §73.

Page 89: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

78

The first unit of thought is a chiastic pair of clauses which are in parallelism (AB//BA).

Both clauses are imperatives, and both occur in the mainline of the volitive future. The עתה is

functioning as casus pendens; it is a macro-syntactic sign.

The second unit of thought is also easy to analyze. Both clauses are imperatives that

maintain the foreground of the volitive future. The second imperative, however, may indicate

succession, as it begins with a waw.210 Combining this unit with the previous one, there is a long

string of imperatives which are all in the same axis of the future. A proper response to Yhwh

elicits all these imperatives together. The commands themselves look back to the rebellious

kings’ desires against the Lord in 2:3, while the subjects refer back to 2:2.

The third unit begins with another imperative which can also be seen as the last in the

previous string of imperatives. It is hard to determine whether the פן refers simply to the

imperative in 2.12a or to the entire string of imperatives previous to it (at the very least it refers

to the imperative in 2.12a). Niccacci understands the remaining clauses (2.12b-d) to be

coordinated dependent clauses.211 The weyiqtol in 2.12c is an indirect volitive form expressing

intention or purpose, while the כי-yiqtol clause in 2.12d functions dependently on 2.12c.

The final unit in the stanza is a simple nominal clause in the axis of the present. The only

other clause sharing the present axis in this poem is 2.7c, in which the Lord says, “You are my

Son.” This Son is the “him” in 2.12e. He is the one who may become angry, but he is also the

one with whom there are many blessings. These blessings seem to include being involved in the

victory he will gain as king, sitting with him upon Zion, where his position of authority lies. The

connection of blessing between Psalms 1 and 2 also seem to indicate that all of the things

210 Niccacci, Syntax, §61, 65. 211 Niccacci, Syntax, §55.2 (pg. 80).

Page 90: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

79

predicated to the Son in both psalms are now predicated to anyone who would trust in him.

Thus, it has been observed in all three poems analyzed that the last colon of the poem gave the

motive for everything that preceded it.

Final Analysis of the Poem

For the most part, the verb forms in Psalm 2 functioned just as Niccacci’s theory anticipated.

The only place of difficulty was in the last stanza, unit three. There, it was somewhat taxing to

understand the relationship between the string of imperatives and the coordinate dependent

clauses (especially the weyiqtol in 2.12c). A solution was presented, however, that remained

consistent with the theory.

All three temporal axis were utilized in this poem, and all contributed much towards the

proper eschatological interpretation of the text. In the poem, the psalmist is seeking an answer to

his question, “Why?” He wants to know why the kings, nations, rulers, and people have all

desired to rebel against the Lord and his Messiah. The verb forms show that the psalmist is

thinking about their past actions and thoughts.

From the author’s perspective, his question is answered by the future actions of the Lord.

The Lord will sit in the heavens and laugh, and will one day terrify them by declaring that he has

established his king on Mount Zion. This is clearly an eschatological reference. The Son then

recounts the plans of Yhwh, and how he will receive his blessings. In a final stanza, the psalmist

pleads with those who rebelled earlier to return to Yhwh, that they might serve him with fear,

and rejoice in trembling. Instead of breaking off the bonds of the Messiah, they are to kiss the

Son. The motive for the entire poem comes out in the very last clause, where it is learned that

the blessings of the Son are also the blessings of all those who take refuge in him.

Page 91: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

80

Evaluation In the foregoing analysis, an clear attempt was made to let Niccacci’s verbal theory speak for

itself. Though a few clauses posed initial difficulty, by and large his verbal theory was sufficient

to analyze the texts in question.

In Jonah 2, the axis of the past was predominately used to recount the journey of Jonah to

the bottom of the sea and back up to the shore. In that text, several alternating qatal/yiqtol

clauses were given an explanation that seemed to fit well into the poet’s strategy. When Jonah

was not describing his downfall, he spoke in the axis of the future about the hope he had on one

day turning to the temple of Yhwh and being in his presence. The final clause in the poem

expressed the motive of Jonah; namely, that he thought that salvation originated in Yhwh alone.

In Psalm 1, the axis of the indicative future was predominately used. In that text, a

difficult area to study was the relationship between 1:2-3. If one were to divide the poem into

strophes by only looking at rhetorical features, one might be tempted to divide the text as 1:1-2

and 1:3. A syntactic analysis showed that 1.2-3 needed to be read together as a unit. In the end,

the syntax of verse 4 was most helpful, as it chiastically paralleled 1:1-3. In this regard,

rhetorical analysis aided greatly in the interpretation of verbal forms. The main thrust of psalm

was shone to exist in the contrast of the blessed man and the wicked. As in Jonah 2, the motive

of the psalmist was expressed in the final colon, where he recounted that Yhwh knows the way

of the righteous, and that the way of the wicked will perish.

In Psalm 2, there was a rich display of all three temporal axes, though the predominate

one seemed to be the volitive future. The poem opened with a description of rebellious people

using the past axis, and their volitional desire to break out from the authority of God. In

Page 92: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

81

analyzing this first stanza, several peculiarities of Biblical Hebrew poetry (alternating qatal-

yiqtol and <x->yiqtol as a double-duty modifier) were shown to help interpret the verb forms.

The rest of the poem utilized the axis of the volitive future to show that the way of the wicked

leads to descruction because the plan of the Lord is to establish his king on Mount Zion. Only in

speech quotations are other temporal axes present. As in the previous two poems, the motive of

the psalmist was expressed in the final clause, where he communicated that the blessings which

belong properly to the Son are also available to anyone who takes refuge in him.

Concerning structure, Jonah 2 used repetition to communicate to the reader. The first

stanza told the entire plot of the poem, wherein subsequent stanzas could provide more details

and expand on the various elements. The structure is both psalms was chiastic. Each psalm had

four stanzas following an ABBA pattern. Thus, each poem was constructed upon parallelism,

within which the poet communicated in terms of segmented speech.

Conclusion

The goal of this paper was not to lay claim to a final solution to the problem of the verb in

Biblical Hebrew poetry. Rather, its aim was to present the verbal theory of Alviero Niccacci,

apply it to certain poetic texts, and then critically analyze his theory’s explanation of those texts.

To achieve that goal two main discussions took place. First, a method for the analysis of

Hebrew poetry was set forth in which the focus rested on the joining together of verbal theory

(syntax) and verse structure (rhetorical). There, aspects of biblical parallelism were examined, as

well as the distinguishing marks of BH poetry. An important step was added into the method of

analysis so that syntax could be analyzed. Since communication in poetry occurs through

parallelism (segmentation) rather than logical and sequential communication (prose), it was

deemed necessary that syntactic analysis was better realized prior to poetic devices. In cases

Page 93: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

82

such as ellipsis, where parallelistic structure is crucial to meaning, rhetorical study is seen to

serve syntax, not vice-a-versa. An example of this was in Psalm 1, where the chiastic structure

of the poem allowed the clauses in 1:4 to help interpret the verb forms in 1:1-3.

A second discussion undertaken was the “enigma” of the Biblical Hebrew verb system.

A brief summary was given to the most prevalent solutions offered over the past two centuries –

tense, aspect, comparative-historical, and discourse-oriented – before a full-blown explanation of

Niccacci’s textlinguistic was done. In explaining Niccacci’s theory, a treatment was given to the

linguistic model proposed by Harald Weinrich (textlinguistics), as well as that model’s first

application to Biblical Hebrew (W. Schneider).

After these discussions, the application of Niccacci’s textlinguistic took place with the

syntactic analysis of Jonah 2:3-10, Psalm 1, and Psalm 2. In each text Niccacci’s theory was

able to make sense of the verb forms as linguistic signs, respecting the verb forms as they were

encountered, on their own terms.

In conclusion, Niccacci has offered a solution to the verb system in BH poetry that has

great potential in both syntactical and rhetorical analysis. What makes Niccacci’s method

promising is that it joins together a theory of the verb (textlinguistics) with a theory of verse

structure (following Berlin’s modern linguistic approach). This allows the study of syntax to

precede rhetoric, yet allow both of them to inform each other. Thus, problem areas such as

ellipsis (verb gapping) or double-duty modifiers (in particular, <x-> yiqtol, are given a sufficient

explanation.

The future of scholarship in this field is able to use Niccacci’s contributions in two

specific directions. First, now that a hypothesis of poetic syntax has been set forth by Niccacci

that seems to work well with several smaller poetic texts, scholars are now able to test his

Page 94: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

83

hypothesis on other larger texts. Just as Niccacci himself has done with Jonah, Malachi, and

several chapters in Proverbs, so now other scholars can join his work. Second, there is also room

for improvement in describing the function of verbal forms. Niccacci’s textlinguistic, though

already well-informed from his research on prose texts, needs tested and more observations need

to be made on the actual distribution of forms in poetic texts. Third, greater work can be done to

develop a way to divide stanzas and strophes that is based off of initial syntactic analysis.

Perhaps the use of asyndeton and waw may provide a key to analysis, as it seemed to help in

analyzing Psalm 1.212

Though it remains significant that scholars have yet to agree on a sufficient theory of the

verb that is able to handle the special problems that arise for the interpretation of verbal

conjugations in Biblical Hebrew poetry, those open for a textlinguistic solution to the problem

have an option in the textlinguistic theory of Alviero Niccacci.

212 See the forthcoming grammar by Garrett (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009).

Page 95: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

84

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: BasicBooks/Perseus Book Group, 1985. _____. “The Characteristics of Ancient Hebrew Poetry,” in Robert Alter and Frank Kermode,

eds. The Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. Alter, Robert, and Frank Kermode, eds. The Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1987. Andersen, F. I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. Antturi, Arto. “The Hebrew Verb in Poetic Context: Psalm 44.” (A paper presented at the

University of Leiden, March 1994). Used by permission by the author. Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2003. Bergen, Robert D., ed. Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Dallas, TX: Summer

Institute of Linguistics, 1994. Berlin, Adele. “Grammatical Aspects of Biblical Parallelism.” Hebrew Union College Annual

50 (1979), 17-43.

_____. “Parallelism,” in D. N. Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

_____. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism: Revised and Expanded. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 2008. Blau, Joshua. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976. Bodine, Walter R., ed. Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What it Offers.

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. _____., ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Chisholm, Robert B. From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew.

Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Page 96: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

85

_____. A Workbook for Intermediate Hebrew: Grammar, Exesgesis, and Commentary on the

books of Jonah and Ruth. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006. Cole, Robert L. “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2.” Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament 98 (2002), 83-96. _____. “(Mis)Translating Psalm 1.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 10/2 (Fall

2005), 35-50. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 19. David A. Hubbard and

Glenn W. Barker, General Editors. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983. Dahood, M. Psalms III (The Anchor Bible). Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970. Driver, S. R. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical

Questions. London: Oxford University Press, 1894. Endo, Yoshinobu. The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach

from Discourse Analysis. Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996. Ewald, Georg Heinrich. Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. Translated by

James Kennedy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1891. Republished Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004.

Fassberg, Steven E. and Avi Hurvitz, eds. Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting:

Typological and Historical Perspectives. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Fokkelman, J.P. Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Translated by Ineke Smit.

Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001. Fuller, Russel T. and Kyoungwon Choi. Invitation to Biblical Hebrew: A Beginning Grammar.

Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006. Garrett, Duane. A Modern Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Nashville: Broadman & Holman,

2002. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch.

Translated by A. E. Cowley. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2006. Gibson, J. C. L. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax. Fourth edition. Edinburgh,

Scotland: T&T Clark, 1994. Goldfajn, Tal. Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1998.

Page 97: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

86

Hatav, Galia. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and biblical Hebrew. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997.

Held, M. “The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and

in Ugaritic,” in M. Ben-Horin, ed. Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman. Leiden: Brill, 1962, 281-290.

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. “Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalm 51-100.” Edited

by Klaus Baltzer. English translation by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis, MS: Augsburg Fortress, 2005.

Hostetter, Edwin C. An Elementary Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 2000. Jakobson, R. “Grammatical Parallelism and its Russian Facet.” Language 42 (1966), 399-429. Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and Revised by T. Muraoka. Rome:

Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996. Kelley, Page H. Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992. Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1981. Lambin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971. Longacre, Robert E. “Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: Affirmation and

Restatement,” in Walter R. Bodine, ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992, 177-189.

_____. Joseph. A Story of Divine Providence. Second Edition. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

2003. Longman, Tremper, III. “Biblical Poetry,” in Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III, eds. A

Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993, 80-91. Lunn, Nicholas P. Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics

from Poetics. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006. Reprint from Paternoster, 2006.

McFall, Leslie. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System. Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1982. Merwe, C. H. J. van der. “A Critical Analysis of Narrative Syntactic Approaches, with Special

Attention to their Relationship to Discourse Analysis,” in Ellen van Wolde, ed. Narrative

Page 98: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

87

Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002, 133-156.

_____. “An Overview of Hebrew Narrative Syntax,” in Ellen van Wolde, ed. Narrative Syntax

and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002, 1-20.

_____. “Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar,” in Robert D. Bergen, ed.

Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994, 13-49.

_____. “Some Recent Trends in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: A Few Pointers Towards a More

Comprehensive Model of Language Use.” Hebrew Studies 44 (2003), 7-24. Merwe, C. H. J. van der, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference

Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “The Hebrew Verb System: A Survey of Recent Research,” in Bengt

Knutsson, ed. Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute. Volume IX. Leiden: Brill, 1974.

Miller, Cynthia L. “A Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry (Or, What to Do When

Exegesis of What Is There Depends on What Isn’t).” Bulletin of Biblical Research 13.2 (2003), 251-270.

Murphy, Todd J. Pocket Dictionary for the Study of Biblical Hebrew. Downer’s Grove, Ill.:

InterVarsity Press, 2003. Niccacci, Alviero. “Analysis of Biblical Narrative,” in Robert D. Bergen, ed. Biblical Hebrew

and Discourse Linguistics. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994, 175-198. _____. “Analyzing Biblical Hebrew Poetry.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 74

(1997), 77-93. _____. “Basic Facts and Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose,” in Ellen van

Wolde, ed. Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002, 167-202.

_____. “On the Hebrew Verbal System,” in Robert D. Bergen, ed. Biblical Hebrew and

Discourse Linguistics. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994, 117-137. _____. “Marked Syntactical Structures in Biblical Greek in Comparison with Biblical Hebrew.”

LASBF 43 (1993), 9-69. _____. “Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi.” LASBF 51 (2001), 55-107.

Page 99: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

88

_____. “Syntactic Analysis of Jonah.” LASBF 46 (1996), 9-32. _____. “Syntactic Analysis of Ruth.” LASBF 45 (1995), 69-106. _____. “Types and Functions of the Nominal Sentence,” in Cynthia L. Miller, ed., The Verbless

Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 215-248.

_____. “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry,” in Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz,

eds. Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006, 247-268.

_____. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Translated by W. G. E. Watson.

JSOTSS 86. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. _____. “The Finite Verb in the Second-Position of the Sentence: Coherence of the Hebrew

Verbal System.” ZAW 108/3 (1996), 434-440. O’Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Pratico, Gary D., and Miles V. Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew: Grammar. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2001. Price, Brynmor F. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah.

Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1978. Putnam, Frederic Clarke. Hebrew Bible Insert: A Student’s Guide to the Syntax of Biblical

Hebrew. Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing, 1996. Revell, E. J. “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose.” Hebrew Union College

Annual 60 (1989), 1-37. Rocine, B.M. Learning Biblical Hebrew: A New Approach Using Discourse Analysis. Macon,

GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000. Ross, Allen P. Introducing Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. Ryken, Leland, and Tremper Longman, III, eds. A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1993. Sailhamer, John H. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Unpublished Class Notes, 2000. Schneider, Wolfgang. Grammatik des Biblischen Hebraischen: Ein Lehrbuch. Munchen:

Claudius, 2001. Seow, C. L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.

Page 100: Andrew Witt - The Syntax of the Verb in Biblical Hebrew Poetry

89

Talstra, Eep. “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry – Linguistic Structure or Rhetorical Device?”

Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 25/2 (1999), 101-126. _____. “Tense, Mood, Aspect and Clause Connections in Biblical Hebrew: A Textual

Approach.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23/2 (1997), 81-103. _____. “Text Grammar and Biblical Hebrew: The Viewpoint of Wolfgang Schneider.” JOTT

5/4 (1992), 269-297. _____. “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of a Theory.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 35

No. 3/4 (1978), 169-174. _____. “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. II: Syntax and Semantics.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 39

No. 1/2 (1982), 26-38. Tatu, Silviu. “Ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic Poetry and Modern Linguistic Tools: An

Interdisciplinary Study.” JSRI 17 (Summer 2007), 47-68. Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Conner. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Technique. JSOTSS 26.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984. Weingreen, Jacob. A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. Third Edition, rev. and expanded by John C.

Beckman. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Wolde, Ellen van. “Rhetorical, Linguistic and Literary Features in Genesis 1,” L. J. de Regt, Jan

de Waard, J. P. Fokkelman, eds. Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 1996.

_____, ed. Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996.

Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002. Wolff, Hans Walter. Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary. Translated by Margaret Kohl.

Minneapolis, MN: Ausgburg Publishing House, 1986. Zevit, Ziony. The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.